PDA

View Full Version : Apollo 17 Lunar Neighbor?



KingNor
2005-Dec-21, 09:11 PM
http://www.lunararcheology.org/station2_taurus.html

Came across this on the web. I havn't had a chance to read all of this as it gets kinda technical, but who is that. does anyone recognise that space suit?

It does seem to have a diffrent visor, so whats going on in this image?

galacsi
2005-Dec-21, 10:48 PM
It is just a knelt astronaut , looking down. We see the back of his backpack and Below is a very dark shadow.The camera is seen from above and not full face.And i dont see any contradiction with the shadows , because a photo taken from the south and a photo taken from the north cannot show the shadows on the same side.

If the visitor is not an astronaut but an alien , it is a big deception to me . I should hope some fancy skin suit and not this very human looking contraption.

01101001
2005-Dec-21, 10:58 PM
See topic Alien boot prints on the moon
(http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=19038)

See FAQ: Can I search the forum? (http://www.bautforum.com/faq.php?faq=vb_board_usage#faq_vb_board_search)

phunk
2005-Dec-21, 11:00 PM
haha

Look at the third and fourth picture down, how they could claim that's not the same spacesuit is beyond me. Is a folding visor all it takes to confuse these conspiracy nuts?

phunk
2005-Dec-21, 11:02 PM
Oh I see, they don't understand that shadows change shape when lit from different angles. Lol.

AGN Fuel
2005-Dec-21, 11:05 PM
I told NASA that it was a mistake to release photographs of the 30-inch tall lunar inhabitants, but do they listen to me....???

It's just the LEVA (http://www.myspacemuseum.com/leva.htm) with the eye-shade visor raised to different levels and as seen at different angles.

KingNor
2005-Dec-22, 12:44 AM
i never thought for a second this was a tiny space man, but i don't recongnise the space suit. and it doesn't look like the other one. i was confused!

Nicolas
2005-Dec-22, 01:21 AM
If I see it correctly, the most "open" way to wear the helmet on the moon is only the transparent glass bulb. Then you can close a reflecting "golden" "sunbulb", white sidepanels, and a top panel with an eye-shade visor.

Correct?

That allows for quite some differences in what the helmet looks like.

Having only the glass bulb (and not too much side and top panels) allows us to see the faces of the astronauts, something that isn't too common on moon photos (well, if you lay them all together it is due to the vast amount of photos). It gives a strange human connection to really see human skin on the moon.

KingNor
2005-Dec-22, 01:36 AM
we'll there's clearly two diffrent types of moon helmits in those photos, they have diffrent types of sun blockers. I've just never seen that weird one.

Peter B
2005-Dec-22, 02:05 AM
G'day KingNor

The only difference about the sunshade is that the visible side is in shade, so dark coloured. It's unusual because of how far up it's been flipped.

Denis12
2005-Dec-22, 03:10 AM
Why dont have i nothing heard and read about this Strange photo until now? I dont understand the whole story about this,what is this?

Peter B
2005-Dec-22, 04:00 AM
Denis12

People are claiming that a photo shows someone or something on the Moon with the astronauts of Apollo 17. The problem with the claim is that the person making the claim is unfamiliar with the equipment used by the astronauts.

Anla'Shok
2005-Dec-22, 08:51 PM
All you have to do is compare h and i photos to see how ignorant his claim is, I am not saying the author is ignorant just his claim. The stickers, the beveled edges, the lever, behind the lever is a marking with a diagonal slash. The possibility that these near identical items are from different sources is astronomical (pun intended).

Nicolas
2005-Dec-22, 09:08 PM
On the author of the website:

*man sees 2 pictures of helmet
*man recognizes apparent differences between the helmets
*man does NOT try to find what the helmet(s) looked like.

If you see something apparently inconsistent, isn't the normal thing to do finding information instead of building a website?

Little googling would have revealed that the helmets hade movable side eyeshade panels, a movable top eyeshade panel including a folding part, and a movable "golden" sun visor overbubble on top of the glass bubble.

Oh btw was the glass strong enough to protect them if the astronauts would fall on their face (not a too unthinkable thing to happen on the moon)? Or were they trained to get their hands in front of their face and turn their head away (were they able to turn their head away?) no matter what?

jt-3d
2005-Dec-22, 10:32 PM
Oh btw was the glass strong enough to protect them if the astronauts would fall on their face (not a too unthinkable thing to happen on the moon)? Or were they trained to get their hands in front of their face and turn their head away (were they able to turn their head away?) no matter what?

Well they could turn their head but not the helmet. I've seen footage of them testing the glass by face planting on a bunch of rocks in the vomit comet so I'd say that crack proof was built into it.

Nicolas
2005-Dec-22, 10:53 PM
OK so it was deemed strong enough and of course chances of falling with their helmet onto something are smaller than falling over (they can place their hands in many cases, or go on their knees).

btw 1/6th gravity doesn't matter, right? the impact energy = 1/2*m*v^2 stays the same. However, your falling speed would be slower, so in the end it does matter :). In another way, one could say that the standing body has less potential energy on the moon, so less energy can be transformed into kinetic energy.

pffff working on the moon must have been quite scary. If something goes wrong you're in deep trouble. If not because of the vacuum, you have the chance you won't be able to return. And nobody can help you. I was reading on the landing of Apollo 15 and it scared me :-). So did the video of Apollo 11. And I KNEW it turned out OK when I saw those.

Apollo 15 had another hard landing upon return, when one of the chutes failed. No wonder these 3 guys did not go back to the moon after that ;).

PhantomWolf
2005-Dec-23, 02:46 AM
I'm pretty sure the helmets aren't glass, they are a moulded high strength polycarbonate (plastic.)

PhantomWolf
2005-Dec-23, 02:50 AM
Apollo 15 had another hard landing upon return, when one of the chutes failed. No wonder these 3 guys did not go back to the moon after that ;).

Actually the capsule was designed to land with two parachutes, the third was added for redundancy in case one didn't open. ;) They didn't get to go back because the later flights were cancelled. :(

Nicolas
2005-Dec-23, 08:40 AM
That part on not going back was a joke :).

btw I read that they lost their astronaut status after it was found out they smuggled 400 letters to the moon to sell them to a stamp collector? Or is dat a minor case of woo-woo?

Having one redundant satellite is a VERY good choice if you've got people inside. Even then there's still a chance of the broken satellite tangling into the other two. And the capsule seems a bit more stable with 3 chutes to me. Designed for it or not, 2 chutes must have been a harder splash than 3 chutes :). Well, clearly they were right that one was redundant as they nicely survived the landing with 2 chutes.

If you look at the moon missions as a whole, they were just so risky! No matter how good the engineering, you've got such a string of critical situations. The moon landings were very impressive indeed, but I do think that stopping the flights was a good choice. Of course they were stopped for a multitude of reasons, but the large risk was (certainly amongst some people) a reason.

It takes a clear mind to recognize the risk -and deem it (too) large- when you're doing something the whole world is proud of and without critical accidents so far.

PhantomWolf
2005-Dec-23, 08:50 AM
Yeah, 13 was pretty much the death blow for Apollo. No Politician wanted dead astronauts on their watch.

As to the crew of 15.

David R. Scott (Com) stayed on at NASA until October 30, 1977, when he resigned to go and found his own company, Scott Science and Technology, Inc.

Alfred Worden (CMP) retired from NASA and the Air Force on September 1, 1975.

and

Jim Irwin (LMP) retired from NASA and the Air Force in July 1972 to form and lead a religious organization, High Flight Foundation, in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

So I doubt there is any truth to their having their status revoked.

Nicolas
2005-Dec-23, 08:54 AM
That article seems to have all the other details correct (including the details on Irwin) so I'd have to find a second source on that letter thing.

The article said they remained at NASA first, but not as astronauts. I don't have time to look it up now, I'm sorry.

PhantomWolf
2005-Dec-23, 09:06 AM
Hmm, Okay. Seems that they did. They took 100 for the collector and 300 for them (well 298 apparently 2 got destroyed preflight.) The truble was over them not telling anyone and the scandal it caused. Had they asked they probably would have been allowed to have taken them anyways. Congress demanded their flight status was revoked.

link here (http://www.collectspace.com/resources/profiles/profiles_a15sieger.html)

ryanmercer
2005-Dec-23, 01:01 PM
Hmm, Okay. Seems that they did. They took 100 for the collector and 300 for them (well 298 apparently 2 got destroyed preflight.) The truble was over them not telling anyone and the scandal it caused. Had they asked they probably would have been allowed to have taken them anyways. Congress demanded their flight status was revoked.

link here (http://www.collectspace.com/resources/profiles/profiles_a15sieger.html)

yeah, they couldn't have been all that heavy, so it wouldn't have mattered... and I know astronauts now are allowed to take so much of anything they want to take for whatever reason... they just have a weight and space restriction.