View Single Post
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 14-January-2003, 12:03 AM
JayUtah's Avatar
JayUtah JayUtah is online now
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,322
Default

It is a popular misconception that the star field would appear different from the moon -- that is, the stars would be in different positions relative to each other.

The parallax involved in the distance from the earth to the moon is utterly negligible. The relative positions of the stars would be unchanged down to the level of observable precision -- several decimal places of degrees.

In 1969 the positions of several thousand stars were accurately known. Not only would planetarium instruments have been able to recreate the star field as seen from the moon, the astronauts trained in planetariums to recognize the star patterns they would use for navigation.

Further, any competent photographer can tell you why the stars should not be visible in the photographs. The argument that NASA couldn't compute the "revised" star locations accurately enough to fool astronomers is a red herring. Let's assume NASA had been able to generate correct star positions and thus included them in the photos. Every photographer on earth would have cried "foul!".

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base
Reply With Quote