Why aren't the stars visible in the photographs of the astronauts on the moon

From: Lou	9/04/99 14:53:03
Subject: Man on the moon	post id: 6152
Why aren't the stars visible in the photographs of the astronauts on the moon? Their absence is one of the main arguments that humans never actually went to the moon and it was all staged in a movie studio. Could this be true??? (sorry if I sound like a crackpot but the truth is out there??) Lou

From: Halogen Fisk	9/04/99 15:23:11
Subject: re: Man on the moon	post id: 6158
1. Film & video cameras sent to the moon were exposed for BRIGHT sunlight (brighter than earth - no atmosphere.) Starlight is substantially dimmer than reflected sunlight -- so the stars in the lunar sky were UNDEREXPOSED!! there fore invisable. 2. If people expected to see stars in the moons sky, & decided to fake picture from the moon, the would INCLUDE THEM IN THE FAKE!! 3. If NASA faked the moon landings, when did they stop faking space travel? - when did they start? - are all the current shuttle pictures faked? - what are those things we call satellites that we can watch fly through the sky any clear night? - how does GPS work if there is no space travel - how about live TV from the other side of the world. The Body of evidence supporting Human's achievement in space is overwhelming. The moon conspiracy is CRAP!!

From: Chris Williams	9/04/99 20:42:29
Subject: re: Man on the moon	post id: 6207
For precisely the same reason that you won't see stars on a flash photo you take here on Earth. It takes minutes of exposure with a fast film to capture stars, and 1/125^th of a second to catch a flash photo of the nearby object. There isn't enough light gathered from a star in that short a time to register. The Moon photos are taken in full sunlight (without the benefit of atmospheric softening) the exposure time will be short to avoid overexposing the subject of the photo and therefore insufficient collection time for starlight. Of course, the astronauts could have deliberately taken photos of stars from the Moon, but these would have been dismissed as hoaxes by the same conspiracy theorists. Either because the same photo could be taken from Earth, or because any nearby object also in frame would be so overexposed that it would not be recognisably lunar.

From: kael driscoll	13/04/99 11:06:55
Subject: re: Man on the moon	post id: 6557
I don't think anyone ever said "space travel" was faked... we all know that can be done, and therefore we do have satellites, GPS etc etc... However, the whole idea of landing on the moon does raise a few questions... like why aren't we doing it now? How was it actually done in 1969?? Why are the astronaut's shadows differing lengths if there is only one lighting source?

From: James Richmond (Avatar)	13/04/99 11:21:38
Subject: re: Man on the moon	post id: 6559
Why aren't we sending people to the moon any more? Basically because governments don't want to spend the money required. The 1969 moon landings were motivated as much by politics as science. The Americans wanted to beat the Soviets in the "space race", and were willing to throw large amounts of money at the problem in order to do it. It was a matter of national pride. With the end of the cold war and collapse of the Soviet Union, space exploration is no longer a high priority with governments. How were the moon landings in 1969 achieved? There is an abundance of information on this topic, all readily available on the web, in museums, on film, in books and so on. If the whole thing was a fake, the fakers made it so believable that we could go to the moon now using the "fake" technical material to construct the appropriate spacecraft. How are the differing shadow lengths of astronauts explained? Well, ground can and does slope, and this affects shadow lengths. JR

This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages.