When Apollo met Soyuz: 45 years ago, Americans and Russians played together nicely... IN SPAAAAACE It is 45 years since US astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts first shook hands in space. The Register presents "When Apollo met Soyuz". Conceived during an all-too-brief warming in relations between the US and the Soviet Union, the mission (known as the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project – ASTP – in the US, and Soyuz-Apollo Experimental …
I trained as a Technical Illustrator back in the late 80's. I chose the Apollo/Soyuz mission as the subject for one of my submissions. Had great fun researching and coming up with infographics, cutaway diagrams and artist's impressions. All in the day before Illustrator & Photoshop, so it was pencil construction, trimetric grids, Indian ink, airbrush, Frisk, rubilith tape, gouache, paste up, etc.
I miss all that stuff.
The 'Manned Moon Landings' can't have happened, on the Moon, because we still don't have practical radiation shielding to protect humans from the deadly radiation in the Van Allen Belt, which will also makes any manned mission to Mars a challenge too. There are also incorrect shadows, a Black sky (no starts), and too good photograph quality, for the 'Manned Moon Landings', and anecdotal evidence from a USA aircraft worker, who, a little before the events, accidentally stumbling upon what was probably a huge moon stage, with odd film gear and a Black ceiling, in part of a massive hanger on a military air base. And there are/were asserted voice records from senior presidential staff then, too, which cast serious doubt on manned moon landings!
There are event timing hints on at least some video of the "The International Space Station" which match the expected cycle timing of anti-gravity simulation flights on dedicated aircraft, which strongly suggest that they are fake, and some shocking inconsistencies by some USA 'astronauts', compared to the Russians.
People in Jet Aircraft get higher radiation exposure, and it's probably a far higher above the ionosphere!
With regards to the lack of stars in the pictures. Have you taken a look outside during the daytime? See any stars?
This Sun thing keeps blocking them out by being an order of magnitudes brighter.
Now, if they went to the dark side of the moon. Then yes, they would have seen stars. But they weren't so they didn't.
It's a fallacy that when you see black skies, that you'd see stars caused by seeing it happen on earth and expecting it the same way everywhere else.
"a little before the events, accidentally stumbling upon what was probably a huge moon stage, with odd film gear and a Black ceiling,"
This was a fictional film. It's called Hanger 17. Have a look for it. Everything else you mention is either debunked or or just outright ridiculous. Clearly you are not old enough to have witnessed it nor clever enough to realise a conspiracy on the world wide level you are claiming simply isn't possible. Anyone with the gear could receive the signals and tell the direction they were coming from and work it out from the timings there from the orbit of the moon.
Had a look at some of your other posts to see in you truly are as dumb as toast, or a troll, and came across this nugget:
"As the frequency goes up, signal reception will get worse, because as the wave length gets shorter, so does the size of obstacles, it can get past, gets smaller, so more cell nodes are required."
So, I can get better wifi at home if I make my furniture smaller?
That's really not how propagation works. I suggest that you go and read the "Ladybird book of science for cretins"
Oh dear oh dear!
Photography baby basics Keythong, if that's your real name?
Photographic film has to be exposed correctly to get a good photograph, otherwise the negative shows under (lack of detail in shadows) exposure, or over (highlights burnt out out with no detail) exposure.
If you try and take a photograph of the stars at night-time on earth, what happens? You have to use a long exposure, almost certainly not hand-held, for the minute amount of light from those distant stars to register on the film's light sensitive emulsion.
So, imagine taking a photo in the blinding light of an atmosphere-less moon. Go on, think about it.
Would they make a long, hand-held exposure to record the stars, just in case some doofus in the future needed proof they were actually on the moon? Or would they use their training skills to get well-exposed shots on fairly primitive colour film without the benefit of exposure meters, either hand-held or in the cameras, which were not automatic. Their preferred subjects would probably be the other astronaut, the equipment and the magnificent desolation don't you think?
As a photographer I have my own suspicions about a couple* of the photos that came back, and I suspect they were taken on Earth in case they had to bug-out or some unexpected and unplanned for fate had befallen the cameras or rolls of film, but stars come nowhere near to your laughable theory.
*The shot of Aldrin exiting the hatch to join Armstrong (taken by Armstrong) in particular. The shadows and specular reflections (highlights showing the rough direction the light is coming from) are all over the place.
The shot of Aldrin exiting the hatch to join Armstrong (taken by Armstrong) in particular. The shadows and specular reflections (highlights showing the rough direction the light is coming from) are all over the place.
Might I point you to nVidia's two rather excellent recreations of that photograph, which mimicked (the second in spectacular detail) the scene perfectly, using just one light source and the reflective qualities of the surroundings?
I think you might be confusing direct sunlight in deep space and direct sunlight on the surface of the moon.
There was a lot of interest about this new-found space friendliness between the superpowers. I noticed one detail. In the Soviet version the name was Soyuz-Apollo (the other way) and the official logo was painted in a way not to offend the Russians. The ships were visible from the side of Soyuz so that the perspective hided the fact that Apollo was much bigger.
The precarious contraption used to align the much-smaller Saturn 1B with the launch platform designed for the Saturn V was known as 'The Milk Stool'. Presumably someone had the enviable job of explaining to senior management that it was just fine to put a fully-fuelled rocket on top of a 40m tower and then get three men to climb into the pointy-end before lighting the blue touch paper.
https://www.popsci.com/resizer/5QYzo_0VwRxDHcot8ZoK6iKiSjE=/1002x1252/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-bonnier.s3.amazonaws.com/public/ACTRONXAMYLIIFP7GHKMYXYHEU.jpg
I being a space enthusiast at ten or so years of age, told my primary school teacher that the Americans and the Russians were going to connect their spaceships in orbit, and he told me straight that it would never happen, because the two sides were so anti each other. I missed the opportunity to tell him, "I told you so," because by that time I was no longer at the school he was teaching at.
These missed opportunities! When will they ever end! :)
I am too young to remember them. I do remember being called by my mum to watch this docking. I was young at the time, but remember believing that this would be the start of real space exploration.
I think we (humankind) missed a trick - collaboration could have rendered so much more.I know we have the ISS, but we should have a presence at our Lagrange points by now. LEO is passe now...
Whilst the Smithsonian at Dulles is a smorgasboard of flight (Especially the De Havilland Chipmunk, which I learnt to fly in), the real interesting artefact is downtown DC, where they actually have a secondary Skylab.
1. It ain't pretty. It's this horrible cat vom yellow, IMMSMC, but amazing nonetheless.
2. It's amazing how they took a stage of the Saturn 5 and managed to shoehorn in Skylab
3. It's both big and small at the same time. You really do have to see it to comprehend both
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
