1026 replies to this topic

[lost_shaman]

psyche101, on 09 December 2011 - 07:12 AM, said:

ETA, hang on you are saying the panel could not be resolved by optics aren't you I think I jumped the gun there. But even with optics, we still have conflicting descriptions, so could they actually see something?

Yeah they could see a point source at best and only for a matter of seconds if a panel, but that's not what was described.

[lost_shaman]

MID, on 08 December 2011 - 10:14 PM, said:

Personally, I won't entertain you again in this matter.

*snip*

Edited by Saru, 09 December 2011 - 12:53 PM.
Removed flame

[lost_shaman]

psyche101, on 09 December 2011 - 07:12 AM, said:

Yes, but further up, it says:

[Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "So then I got down in the LEB and started looking for it in the optics. We were grossly mislead because with the sextant off focus what we saw appeared to be a cylinder."]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "Or really two rings."]

[Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "Yes."]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "Two rings. Two connected rings."]

[Collins, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "No, it looked like a hollow cylinder to me. It didn't look like two connected rings. You could see this thing tumbling and, when it came around end-on, you could look right down in its guts. It was a hollow cylinder. But then you could change the focus on the sextant and it would be replaced by this open-book shape. It was really weird."]





As such, he was using an instrument at this time wasn't he?

Clearly they did use optics at some point. My arguement is that even with optics they would have seen point sources at the minimum distances we are talking about.

Distant point sources don't look like 'cylinders' or 'L' shapes, or 'open books', they all look like point sources.

[MID]

lost_shaman, on 09 December 2011 - 08:33 AM, said:

Clearly they did use optics at some point. My arguement is that even with optics they would have seen point sources at the minimum distances we are talking about.
Distant point sources don't look like 'cylinders' or 'L' shapes, or 'open books', they all look like point sources.

Really?
This was a "point source", many hundreds of miles away.  Optics seems to have denied your statement. Despite the many miles of air they were looking through (I know, seeing doesn't matter to you.

recognize it?

Edited by MID, 11 December 2011 - 02:12 AM.

[DONTEATUS]

MID, on 11 December 2011 - 02:01 AM, said:

Really?
This was a "point source", many hundreds of miles away.  Optics seems to have denied your statement. Despite the many miles of air they were looking through (I know, seeing doesn't matter to you.

recognize it?

I can see that ! Its Sweetie ! good on you Mid !
Have a Great Holiday !
P.M coming your way !

Attached Files

•  0-90236_C-124_DM_1280.jpg   174.35K   0 downloads

[lost_shaman]

MID, on 11 December 2011 - 02:01 AM, said:

Really?
This was a "point source", many hundreds of miles away.  Optics seems to have denied your statement. Despite the many miles of air they were looking through (I know, seeing doesn't matter to you.

recognize it?

Funny that you didn't mention the magnification or diameter of the target. I've made the point that the 28X Sextant the Crew used would only magnify a panel around 400 miles as one arcminute. i.e. that is a point source at 453 miles.

Edited by lost_shaman, 11 December 2011 - 04:40 AM.

[lost_shaman]

No.4, on 11 December 2011 - 07:48 AM, said:

- post removed -

Welcome to UM. Thanks. And no, 'physicist' is not my day job.

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

No.4, on 11 December 2011 - 07:48 AM, said:

- post removed -

I think through reading this debate daily.....it is as it is...a debate...to mock either of the protagonists is a step in the wrong direction IMO.......you should maybe sit back and let it continue,so that far superior minds on this subject can continue it on without interuption.... im sure many have....I have enjoyed this debate and hope to continue doing so and enjoy to read differing opinions.....i do think its a credit to all involved

[MID]

lost_shaman, on 11 December 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

Funny that you didn't mention the magnification or diameter of the target. I've made the point that the 28X Sextant the Crew used would only magnify a panel around 400 miles as one arcminute. i.e. that is a point source at 453 miles.

Funny I didn't have to, as the fact is, the ISS, or a spacecraft on orbit, is observed as  a point source.
The optics clearly show more than that, in my photo, and many other examples.  Thus, your statement is incorrect.

Edited by MID, 11 December 2011 - 05:10 PM.

[mcrom901]

MID, on 11 December 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:

Funny I didn't have to, as the fact is, the ISS, or a spacecraft on orbit, is observed as  a point source.
The optics clearly show more than that, in my photo, and many other examples.  Thus, your statement is incorrect.

but mid, that was through an 8 inch...

http://science.nasa....jul_spaceship2/

[MID]

mcrom901, on 11 December 2011 - 05:15 PM, said:

but mid, that was through an 8 inch...

http://science.nasa....jul_spaceship2/

So?

It's a point source, which can be observed through optics with some detail.

[DONTEATUS]

Ive seen the ISS with the nakie eye so do I get a prize?

[Lilly]

DONTEATUS, on 11 December 2011 - 07:24 PM, said:

Ive seen the ISS with the nakie eye so do I get a prize?

Certainly, here you go! (<click link)

[MID]

DONTEATUS, on 11 December 2011 - 07:24 PM, said:

Ive seen the ISS with the nakie eye so do I get a prize?

D,

You got Lilly's gold star!
I hope you realize the loftiness of that award!
!

[lost_shaman]

mcrom901, on 11 December 2011 - 05:15 PM, said:

but mid, that was through an 8 inch...

http://science.nasa....jul_spaceship2/

Actually the photo was taken from the 24 inch Telescope at Table Mountain Observatory by James Young.

http://science.nasa....SSMontage1a.jpg