Moon Blinding the Astronaut

[GaryFenza]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=e6c60m3JbKw\

Why are the HB's critizing this video now??? whats wrong with him, something about he should be blind from the sun? im confused haha

[JayUtah]

For some reason, some people think if you don't have the gold visor down, you'd be immediately blinded. Dunno why they think that. The visor is just basically big sunglasses, not some life-or-death thing.

This is Apollo 17, and the astronaut shown is Dr. Jack Schmitt. Unfortunately he scratched his gold visor part-way through the mission and so spent a lot of time with it up because he couldn't see very well through the scratches.

[GaryFenza]

ooo, well that explains that. man these people will go after the smallest little things that are so easily anwered by you guys, haha:dance:

[JayUtah]

Yeah, pretty much.

[Amber Robot]

For some reason, some people think if you don't have the gold visor down, you'd be immediately blinded.

No, he'd be instantly fried to a crisp by the ultraviolet radiation - didn't you see Armageddon?? :rolleyes:

[Ronald Brak]

No, he'd be instantly fried to a crisp by the ultraviolet radiation - didn't you see Armageddon??

Wasn't that Deep Impact? Amazing how $2 sunglasses can stop over 99% of UV radiation but a space suit helmet don't do a thing.

And why did they send up an astronaut with such a severe neurological condition? When most people accidently look at they sun they shut their eyes and look away. Most people don't continue to stare into it while screaming, unlike in that movie.

[Count Zero]

My understanding, in that scene, was that the comet was much closer to the Sun at the time, near perihelion.

[Astrowannabe]

for some reason that link didn't work, it redirects you to the youtube main page. Anyone else have that problem, or is it just me?

Can you repost the link, Gary?

[Lukas]

the correct link is: http://youtube.com/watch?v=e6c60m3JbKw

[Amber Robot]

Wasn't that Deep Impact? Amazing how $2 sunglasses can stop over 99% of UV radiation but a space suit helmet don't do a thing.

Oh, yeah, you're right... it was Deep Impact. The one of the pair that was supposed to have actually listened to its science advisors. :rolleyes:


And why did they send up an astronaut with such a severe neurological condition? When most people accidently look at they sun they shut their eyes and look away. Most people don't continue to stare into it while screaming, unlike in that movie.

He was screaming because the UV radiation was burning his face to a crisp. Finding materials that absorb UV light is easy. To make his space suit helmet transmit the UV, enough to burn his face, they'd have to go out of their way to make the helmet out of a UV transmitting material.

[Fazor]

Funny, *I* thought the gold visors were to mask the true identities of the actors standing in for the real "flight crew" ;)

[ducks and runs out of the room]

[tofu]

they'd have to go out of their way to make the helmet out of a UV transmitting material.

and THAT is why you never insult an engineer (or a parachute packer). They will get you back.

[JayUtah]

The fully-transparent visors in space helmets are made from optical Lexan, a very tough polycarbonate material that is essentially opaque to ultraviolet. The gold visor doesn't significantly reduce the amount of ultraviolet that strikes the astronaut's face. The gold visor is meant to attenuate light in the visible wavelengths, the same way dark sunglasses do.

The sun glinting off the surface was probably very bright, but not in a way that would immediately blind you. I used to think Arabs wore sunglasses mostly to look cool until I started spending significant time in the world's deserts, whereupon I learned that you can get along without sunglasses, but you don't want to.

[Fazor]

I wonder if the HB'ers that claim he would have been instantly blinded have ever been outside on a snowy day? Even if the sky is clear and the sun is out, your eyes don't bake in your skull. I don't care to look it up but I'd imagine that more light reflects off of the white snow than off of the lunar surface.

Oh well, false logic always makes sense when you ignore the facts.

[Moose]

To make his space suit helmet transmit the UV, enough to burn his face, they'd have to go out of their way to make the helmet out of a UV transmitting material.

Note to self: never have my space suit visors made by engineers who specialize in magnifying glasses and telescope optics.

[Irishman]

Fazor, the supposed difference is the supposed protective power of the Earth's atmosphere.

[Fazor]

Fazor, the supposed difference is the supposed protective power of the Earth's atmosphere.

Ah, yes, forgot that aspect of the argument.

[grant hutchison]

I wonder if the HB'ers that claim he would have been instantly blinded have ever been outside on a snowy day? Even if the sky is clear and the sun is out, your eyes don't bake in your skull. I don't care to look it up but I'd imagine that more light reflects off of the white snow than off of the lunar surface.Yep.
Direct sunlight is around 100,000 lux at sea-level on Earth, and 130,000 lux above the atmosphere. There are various indices of reflection quoted for the lunar surface, but representative chunks seem to reflect 10-20% of the incident light, as compared to 80% for fresh snow. So the lunar surface should look maybe a third or a quarter as bright as fresh snow on a clear day: more if the astronaut looks towards the antisolar point, less if he looks off sideways.

Grant Hutchison

[mugaliens]

Wasn't that Deep Impact? Amazing how $2 sunglasses can stop over 99% of UV radiation but a space suit helmet don't do a thing.

And why did they send up an astronaut with such a severe neurological condition? When most people accidently look at they sun they shut their eyes and look away. Most people don't continue to stare into it while screaming, unlike in that movie.

You should meet my five year old.

No, waitaminute, that's not quite right...

Actually, that was me when I was five, staring into the sun on a hot summer morning.

For about ten minutes, just because I could.

Fortunately, no permanent damage.

[Ronald Brak]

Actually, that was me when I was five, staring into the sun on a hot summer morning.

For about ten minutes, just because I could.

Fortunately, no permanent damage.

Well that's what Issac Newton did. Maybe the solar energy has supercharged your brain so you're now as smart as him? If you haven't stared into the sun since then that's evidence that you've become smarter.

[mugaliens]

Well that's what Issac Newton did. Maybe the solar energy has supercharged your brain so you're now as smart as him?

Ha! Good one! But I strongly doubt it.


If you haven't stared into the sun since then that's evidence that you've become smarter.

Can't doubt that - I was seeing a spot in front of my vision for several days. Have avoided both the sun and bright, oncoming headlights ever since.

[JayUtah]

Unfortunately I know people who have stared at the sun as children and did suffer permanent partial vision loss.

[Nicolas]

I have a black spot due to a scratch on my eclipse visor.

[SpitfireIX]

Unfortunately I know people who have stared at the sun as children and did suffer permanent partial vision loss.

I was always really paranoid about that when I was a kid, after one of my teachers put the fear of God into me with a story about teenager who went blind from watching a solar eclipse. I'd always go in my room and hide under the covers whenever one happened.

[AtomicDog]

Unfortunately I know people who have stared at the sun as children and did suffer permanent partial vision loss.

I was always really paranoid about that when I was a kid, after one of my teachers put the fear of God into me with a story about teenager who went blind from watching a solar eclipse. I'd always go in my room and hide under the covers whenever one happened.


Total solar eclipse of 21 August 2017:
http://www.mcglaun.com/eclipse/ECLIPSE2017_main.HTM

You can run...:cool:

[SpitfireIX]

Nah, I was fine once I learned what precautions to take. In fact, during the 1991 eclipse we had all the proper equipment to watch; my brother even took some 35mm pictures with the camera set up on a tripod.

[Ronald Brak]

When in doubt, always let your camera go blind instead of you. Unless perhaps you happen to live in an area where eyes are cheaper than cameras.

[Jakenorrish]

We didn't get that trouble in Cornwall UK in 1999. There was no need for the eclipse glasses that must have made someone a small fortune as the heavy cloud cover prevented any eye damage from bright sunshine... :(

[JayUtah]

Unless perhaps you happen to live in an area where eyes are cheaper than cameras.

I've seen some camera prices that seem roughly equivalent to having your eyes gouged out.

[Dave J]

If the Moon's surface is bright enough to potentially blind an astronaut (as they claim), then what's the big deal about the artificial "secondary light source" illuminating the shaded area of the LM/astronauts?
Hmmmm...

[Nicolas]

Hoax claims are not accumulable with other hoax claims. Next time read the fine print.

[Fazor]

Hoax claims are not accumulable with other hoax claims. Next time read the fine print.

Sure they are, you just have to follow the "correct" line of reasoning: Handle one thing at a time, and don't get bogged down by the last claim when you move on to the next. :) It's called Hollywood Theory, Plot lines need not be consistant, as long as they are interesting.

[Nicolas]

Sure they are, you just have to follow the "correct" line of reasoning: Handle one thing at a time, and don't get bogged down by the last claim when you move on to the next.

You just defined "not accumulable". :)

[BertL]

I actually like handling one thing at a time. Gives less opportunity for the HB to talk his mistakes away or jump to another subject quickly.

[Fazor]

I actually like handling one thing at a time. Gives less opportunity for the HB to talk his mistakes away or jump to another subject quickly.

That's all fine and good, but you're leaving off the second part where you don't consider the implications of the other points while arguing a particular case. Regardless if you're facing them all at once (overwhelming) or break them down, they WHOLE story needs to add up. [scarcasm] Suprisingly [/sarcasm] only one 'theory' out there meets that qualification. Can you guess which version of the story that is? :)

[Nicolas]

the WHOLE story needs to add up. [scarcasm] Suprisingly [/sarcasm] only one 'theory' out there meets that qualification. Can you guess which version of the story that is?

Sibrel's theory. Last time I checked, it added up to 24.95€.

[Fazor]

Sibrel's theory. Last time I checked, it added up to 24.95€.

:lol:

[NEOWatcher]

I actually like handling one thing at a time. Gives less opportunity for the HB to talk his mistakes away or jump to another subject quickly.
Maybe we can find enough HB claims where the claim of one would negat the claim of another. Sit them both in an interview, and watch what happens.
They would either debunk each other, or come up with the most hilarious malarkey you could imagine.
And the debunker wouldn't even have to argue any science, just keep the conversation on topic.

[Nicolas]

"these are just several theories as to what really happened. The amount of anomalies in the official story where thes theories are based on however does show at least that the official story is a hoax"

[Donnie B.]

Maybe we can find enough HB claims where the claim of one would negat the claim of another. Sit them both in an interview, and watch what happens. Bad idea. Their combined masses would be converted into energy as they annihilated one another. Not a good thing. ;)

[sts60]

Maybe we can find enough HB claims where the claim of one would negat the claim of another. Sit them both in an interview, and watch what happens.
They would either debunk each other, or come up with the most hilarious malarkey you could imagine.

With "Cosmic Dave", you didn't even need another HB to achieve both outcomes. Talk about multitasking!