The Chronicles of NASA: The Man,the Moon & the Myth

It’s that merry time that comes once every year.
The Celebration of our first trek off of this earthly sphere.
It fills most Americans with patriotic cheer,
as their rivals the Russians,boo and jeer.
And in the middle of all this, what do I see?
An age old controversy
and so I shall end this rhyme, so weird and queer
I now regret starting it, Oh dear, Oh dear
Diminished hopes of being his peer
I’m afraid this can’t compare to a sonnet of Shakespeare
 Thus concludes my short lived poet’s career
But Wait! Oh Dear readers, the point is missed I fear!
I have gone off on a tangent it would appear
The topic of the day is the Moon Landing. Hear, Hear

AAaaaand with that I lose half of the minute gathering of followers I had. Please accept my most humble apologies for that dreadful piece of prose. Went off on a whim there.  Let me compose myself (The Word Smith clears his throat).

Finally…Finally the Word Smith.has.come.back.toooo.talk.about.the.moooooooooooooooon.la-la-la-la-la-landing. (And now I lost the rest).

 But yes dear readers, proving yet again our obsession with multiples of five, we celebrated the 45^th anniversary of the first Manned Moon Landing on the 20^th of July.

It truly is a time for sharing and caring. Sharing posts of the damn moon landing and caring about whether or not it’s fake, that is. This might sound a bit hypocritical (since this is technically one of those posts) but dear readers I just want to put an end to this absurd controversy that’s been raging on for decades.

I shall examine eleven popular hoax theories about the moon landing that were debated, stating both the points and counter points.

Disclaimer: If you are a close-minded,self righteous prick of a conspiracy theorist then you may want to stick two fat fingers in your ear and hum loudly because shit’s about to get real. 

Nuff said let’s get down to it. 

1) That one small step

The iconic photograph of Buzz Aldrin’s boot print is one that symbolizes the statement “one small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind”. 

But theorists say that NASA is just throwing moon dust in our eyes. 

Their point being that there is no way for a footprint to be that well preserved in a place where there is no atmosphere and no moisture to hold the sand together. 

It is human nature to search for familiarity, and that is where the conspiracy theory crumbles to dust. Since there is no weather on the moon dust particles are not subjected to any weathering making these crystals jagged with sharp edges,enabling them to stick together like parts of a jigsaw puzzle thus maintaining the shape of the boot print.

With that starts this debate. We shall see who comes out ahead once the dust settles. 

2) The waving flag and then it goes back

The most commonly known issue is the waving flag. I saw it, you saw it, your grandpapi with the one eye saw the damn banner of the USA flapping about proudly in the breeze. This is an impossibility in a vacuum devoid of air. So why the bloody hell did it? Conspiracy theorists say because it was filmed here on earth

NASA blames the flag waving on a bad iron job, making the flag look unfurled and giving it that rippling effect, and on Neil Armstrong’s clumsy attempt to stick the flag in the ground thereby making the pole and consequently the flag flap around which can indeed happen even in a vacuum.

Cropped photograph animation of Buzz Aldrin saluting the "waving" flag

In this case proof does support NASA but to be fair to the conspiracy theorists it really looks like a gust of wind making the flag flutter. More to the point if that were true the theorized filming would have had to be shot outdoors or perhaps someone left the windows open on set .Do you think the minds who would formulate such a grand hoax will allow such a miniscule mistake?

3) Moon landing ain’t shit but tricks and slow-mo 

 

 

Conspiracy theorists say that documentation of the astronauts prancing around on the moon is nothing but Hollywood hokum.

The footage when sped up shows the movement to be almost earth like (i.e. subjected to gravity).Trick wires and cables also enable the replication of the weightlessness and immensely elevated jumps.

Always be Batman

Scientists rebut this claim by drawing attention to the dust that the lumbering astronauts and the lunar rover fling around when they move about on the moon. Dust on earth when kicked up suspends in the air forming clouds due to the atmosphere where as dust on the moon just falls back at the same rate as any other object. 
This effect can be clearly seen in the recording

For NASA to fake such conditions they would have to create a vacuum studio which is an incredibly difficult task even in today’s standards. There really is no point kickin’up dust.

4)A Shadow of a doubt

The only source of light on the moon is the Sun right?

 
 So explain how the shadows in this picture are cast in different directions and not parallel to each other.

 

 
And explain this picture of the clearly visible and well lit astronaut in the shadow of lunar module. I ain’t racist but shouldn’t he be black?

Clearly there are more light sources and errthing is staged.

NASA points its finger at the contours of the lunar landscape and holds it responsible for the different directions in which the shadows are cast. The exaggerated angular disparity however seems a little shady (pun intended).  

The photograph of the lunar module and the clearly visible astronaut is explained by the simple fact that lunar regolith or moon dust/rock is quite reflective (can reflect up to 12% of light to be exact) thus illuminating the astronaut.

But that is nothing compared to the other reflective light source present. The earth has the ability to reflect 30% of light. Talk about overshadowing someone.

5) No moon rock left unturned 

Conspiracy theorists are proud to present you with…… “The copyright rock”

Yes that is the letter “C” imprinted on a lunar rock on the moon. Maybe someone from the previous Apollo missions carved their initials on there, looking at you Commander Charles Conrad; or perhaps this is the work of aliens.

Theorists however go back to the studio claiming this is a prop mishap where a set designer accidentally left a labeled rock upturned and that was caught on camera.

NASA provides quite suspicious answers as they say that this is a stray strand of hair caught up somewhere in the developing process, a mere glitch. Yet they also put forward a second accusation that this was a crime of photograph tampering by some elusive fiend.  

 When I checked the original photograph on the NASA website the C wasn’t on the rock. 

So why then did NASA scientists make a big deal over something that wasn’t even there and respond to this hoax accusation? Whether at the hands of NASA or a prankster it is evident some sort of photograph tinkering has been going on.

6) Caught in the cross hairs 

Yet another photographic blunder was spotted by a very keen eyed possibly unemployed theorist who noticed something quite odd about the crosshairs in the Apollo photographs. The crosshairs said to have been etched into the camera lens appear to be behind some of the objects in the stills.

How is this even possible? This is clearly a flaw wrought forth by the fabrication of these photographs.

This can be disputed with one word, “overexposure” and I don’t mean of theorists to conspiracy documentaries.

I speak in terms of Photography

The issue of the photographs where the crosshair appears behind the object only arises when the crosshair is in front of bright white areas. The problem with this is that it renders the thin line of the crosshair invisible thus creating the illusion of the object being in front of the cross hair.

But photo doctoring is always a possibility and theorists may still stick to their guns however I think it’s fair to say that this claim was shot down.

7) Seeing double

It would seem that the ever frugal NASA has erred again in its attempt to pull the wool over our eyes by using the same set of backdrops and same locations. The audacity!  

 This is blatantly clear in both the stills as well as the footage which when merged shows the exact same topography although NASA claims that they were filmed in completely different locations. Put two and two together and the answer is in plain sight, Orchestration!

NASA simply answers this allegation with an unenthused “No”. They point out that the moon is small, barren and has no atmosphere and the combination of all three affects the perception of distance thus giving us the illusion that the photographs were shot in the same location.

However this does not explain why the hill from the footage of Apollo 16 day one, is the exact same one in the footage of day two when NASA claims that they were shot in two different locales. Is it just coincidence or is there more to it than meets the eye?

 

8) Star struck

 

When you look up into the night sky you see thousands of sparkling stars out there in space. Theorists point out the total lack of stars in all the photographs and video footage taken on the moon. Why when on the moon, in space, are there no visible stars? Did God turn out his heavenly light bulbs or was this another prop disaster?

Well much like celebrities trying to hide from the paparazzi it would seem that these stars are concealed in plain sight. In both cases photography is to blame. The brightly lit lunar landscape prevents the use of high exposure cameras and the shutter speed of the cameras used was fast thus rendering the photographs starless.

9) In the Spotlight

 

And to centre stage returns Commander Charles "Pete" Conrad. 

The picture below was taken on the commander’s Apollo 12 mission and what is that I see on the top right corner of his visor? 

The lunar module? No that was to the right of the photograph. A UFO?  Could be. But theorists go with stage equipment. They believe that foreign object to be a spotlight or a ceiling fan dangling from the rafters.

It is actually believed to be one of the artifacts from previous missions. Which one exactly? I’m unsure of.  I actually think it looks a lot like a Command/Service Module orbiting the moon. If you think you know what it is I kindly invite you to comment below and to step into the limelight.

10) Brace for anti-climactic impact 

 

Theorists say that they have seen craters bigger than that of the lunar landing on their own faces. There is no blast crater or dust displacement or any evidence of the 17 ton lunar module’s arrival on the moon in any of the photographs or video footage

The simple fact of the matter is that the moon’s gravity being 1/6^th that of earth means that the Lunar module didn’t need any thrust to slow down its descent thus explaining the lack of a blast crater. The Lunar module did have a throttleable descent engine to enable the shift from its ejected horizontal position into a vertical descent. 

The engine is shut off way before the landing.

So the conspiracy theory it would seem is just full of hot air. 
Blast!

 11) Van H-allen’s Radiation belt

 

 I “Ain’t talking ‘bout love” or Van Halen either but both the Band and the Belt (Van Allen’s belt that is) can melt your face and cook you inside out. So the question theorists ask, with no malicious intent is why weren’t the astronauts burnt alive by the radiation despite the aluminum coating layered module? 

NASA responded by stating that they built a rocket for a reason. The short time it takes to traverse through the belt reduces the radiation exposure to 1/25^th of the allowed standard, set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission. 

So conspiracy theorists it’s time to face the music.

If the points above weren’t satisfactory and you still believe in the depths of your heart that man has not set a single foot on the moon I give to you the Lunar Laser ranging experiment.

Laser tag with the moon

The moon is littered with artifacts. Among them are retro-reflectors left by the Apollo (manned) missions. These are, essentially, reflective surfaces that enabled scientists to bounce lasers off the moon. 

I can almost hear the naysayers screaming their protests .Yes they did bounce lasers off the actual surface of the moon before the Apollo missions, but the reflectors offer better, stronger and far more accurate reflection.  This experiment is conducted in labs around the globe thus providing not only conclusive proof of man being on the moon but also an experiment to measure the distance from the earth to the moon.

This was a Public Service Announcement  brought to you by yours truly if you know any conspiracy theorists send them this way and I’ll bitch slap them with the truth. 

Annuit cœptis

Peace out

Transformers:The Rise of the Writer Robots

Dear Readers 

I bring to you this alarming bulletin immediately after stumbling upon the disturbing news that I am actually, a computer program.

Hold on! Wait! Wait just a second…I’m getting a new update…

After further experimentation, which involved slapping myself in the face (which hurt) and a swift sharp kick in the crotch (delivered by my girl friend ,which hurt even more; not because of her betrayal but more by the action itself) it is safe to conclude that, I, am real. 

Not so fast Geppetto, whether I’m a real boy or a girl shall be determined after doctors examine my crushed genitals; although most of my friends will have already diagnosed me as a girl.

Much to my displeasure however, that controversy shall remain unsolved.

Today’s controversy shall be….

Robot writers Aye or Nein?

Call me superficial, a dumbass or whatever you want to, but what actually drove me to write on this topic is that, one, of these automated writing programs and I have something in common. Our name.
 Wordsmith. 

I know, I know, besides actually meaning that one is apt at writing, it is indeed a popular pseudo name. But whether you like it or not that’s what caught my attention and that’s what led me to delve into the world of automated writing.

Now for a bit of Fun, Factual & tangential trivia. 

This is a 240 year-old automaton writer, which essentially is a predecessor of the modern robot and possibly even the computer. 

Being one out of the three infamous automata designed by the Jaquet --Droz family, it can write cursive that buries my own. 

Even though that isn’t saying much, No-one can deny that this is an astounding piece of machinery.

 But even saying that does not justify what it is; a true work of art, a masterpiece. 

Fast forward to the future, where robot writers of today are already out there; analyzing data, crunching algorithms, literally dotting the “I”s and crossing the “T”s, and actually publishing books and writing articles.  Associated Press, Forbes, LA Times, ProPublica, Yahoo! are some of the companies who already have robot writers. 

Here begins the controversy. 

Most authors, poets and journalists are appalled by the implication that their literature, unto which their blood, sweat and tears have been poured, can be replaced by the formulated text pumped out of cold, hard soulless machines.  

However the opposition argues that almost all writing has some form of formula or algorithm behind it, which can be replicated by computer programs to produce equally similar pieces. Robot writers acutally back this up providing narratives that are surprisingly competent and are reasonably indistinguishable from that of a human writer, and perhaps even better.   

I say this only in the context of article writing that involves a lot of statistics and numerical data. Given the correct algorithm a computer can analyze large chunks of data to obtain, patterns, anomalies, key data and predict future trends much more efficiently and accurately than a human. This coupled with the recent ability to convert this data into easily comprehensible narratives the robot writer gets an edge over its human counterpart.

Along with my namesake program there are several other programs that offer this service, The Quill (article writing for businesses) and Quakebot (which reports about seismic activity straight from the U.S. Geological Survey and writes articles about it)are two examples. 

So the question remains, can robot writers actually replace human writers? 

In the future, perhaps.

The simple fact of the matter is that however complex a computer is “WE” are far more complex. 

Of course a computer is more neutral, factual and logical but it is 

that emotional touch

that empathy 

that individualistic perspective that is labeled as bias 

that makes a piece of writing special and unique,both to read and to write.

 

The solution or rather conclusion is simple.Coexistence. 

Let the robot writers handle the boring factual and statistical articles (still under human supervision) & leave opinionated, artistic and idealistic literature to the human writers. 

But before you go I pose to you a question …. 

Can you differentiate the writing of a computer from that of a human? It is surprisingly hard to draw a distinction. Don’t believe me? Take this quiz and see for yourself.

BOT or NOT

Not to Brag but I got 10 out of 10. Try and beat that Bitc..Readers! Readers!

Peace out and as the young Swaggies say “TU tantum Vivere Quodam”                

Minecraft: Asteroid edition

Dear readers 

If you think this to be a misleading ploy, utilizing a famous franchise/brand; to attract views then you would be nothing short of utterly correct. It was cleverly devised by a devious friend of mine.
Ok, ok you caught me; I have no friends hahaha. This is the kind of self effacing humor which can be expected from this blog.

What you can also expect is Controversy.

To find it we once again look to the celestial heavens, more specifically to the rocky masses rolling through space AKA Asteroids.  In case the title didn’t already give it away (In which case you probably won’t be interested in the article anyway and I suggest you move it along); the controversy of the day and the coming decades will be Asteroid Mining.
 

Before we start it is of crucial significance to acknowledge the organizations currently researching the field of asteroid mining:
-NASA
-Deep Space industries
-Planetary Resources Inc
-Kepler Energy and Space Engineering LLC

Now several questions strike the mind when talking about the “prospect” of asteroid mining (a dash of mining humor, you younglings probably won’t get it)

1) Why in the seven hells are we even talking of mining asteroids?

To answer, I direct you to an economic phrase; “Limited resources and unlimited wants”. The earth’s resources, specifically mined elements that are necessary for modern industry to function (e.g.:-zinc, tin, lead, copper, etc.) are estimated to expire in 50 to 60 years time.

What on earth are we to do? Nothing would provide a solution, well nothing on earth that is.
Scientists really thought outside the box and the atmosphere and found an answer, Asteroids.

Asteroids are like meteoroids but instead of containing space rubble and garbage, they are rich with wicked valuable metals and elements.  

About time we did talk about asteroid mining don’t you think? 

2) How do we know for certain if there’s even anything worth mining on those godforsaken space boulders?

Ah well, Specialized satellites are to be devised to acquire details about composition, proximity acceleration required to get to and from the intended target and other key factors in order to determine if a particular asteroid is indeed a valid and valuable prospect for mining.

Planetary resources inc. has planned the development of the following equipment to carry out the prospecting of asteroids:

-Arkyd series 100(the LEO space telescope) a telescope to analyze asteroids (currently being worked on, there’s a kick starter and everything)
-Arkyd series 200(the Interceptor) a  probe of sorts that would further analyze the asteroid on site
-Arkyd series 300 (the Rendezvous Prospector) satellite that will  research and find resources “deeper in space”

To elaborate further on the selection process, first and foremost the asteroid has to be a ‘Near earth asteroid’ so that the acceleration needed to transport the resources to and from is less, thus getting a higher return on the prospect.

The composition itself varies from asteroid to asteroid however they can be classified into 3 main common types, but there are many other subclasses you can Google if you are interested.

3) Fine but how are we going to mine a bloody Asteroid if it is blasting through space?

The organizations mentioned afore have concocted several methods on how to approach the mining aspect as illustrated in the pictures below.

A) Shoot to Drill - a robotic prospector is to remain on site to drill for precious materials that will be shipped to earth via capsules.

What it would actually look like

What I wish it would be like.

B) Bag ‘em and drag ‘em- a mission to retrieve an asteroid by enveloping it and transporting it to the moon’s orbit for it to be mined.

What it could actually look like

What a caricature of the proposed mission would be like.

C) Haul Ass-teroid –Towing an asteroid using rocket power into earth’s orbit for mining.

What it could be like

What it's actually going to be like

 

4) Is Asteroid Mining really worth it? Yes or No?                    

                                   

Yes. That’s all folks, have a pleasant day.                      

5) Seriously? GOD you piss me off! Elaborate please. 

Well “Yes” in the long run would be a better answer.  This is because with the current technology we possess feasibility is in a horrid state.

To put this in context NASA’s upcoming mission (OSIRIS-Rex) which costs around $1 billion estimated to bring back 2 ounces of gold or platinum, $1800 per ounce.
So technically ROI would be $3600-$1billion/$1billion X 100 which amounts to extremely BAD.
Granted the project is indeed just an asteroid study and sample retrieval but can they not bring a bigger sample?

But it is the prospect of Asteroid Mining in the long run will that make it a worthwhile investment as it will push humanity to discover efficient and cost effective space travel (the development of a Space fuel depot is already in the talks due to this).

It could be the first step that would lead us to colonize planets.

It could be the first step that would lead us to make our first contact with extraterrestrials.

It could be the first step that would lead us to BE extraterrestrials.

And, in my mind, thus solves the controversy.

Progress demands our attention and our support.

Our resources are depleting whether we like it or not. I say high time we started thinking about it and thinking off world.

SO in conclusion Asteroid Mining FTW

Comment below if you agree and want to add anything or if your opinion differs. I would appreciate it either way.
You know, whatevs.

Haters gonna hate, Lovers gonna love, and honey badgers don’t give a Sh*t.

Peace out. Cheers

Just Dusting The Big Bang Theory

Dear Readers

I apologize for being off the interweb for some time. Contrary to popular belief I do have a life, but that is a controversy for another time.

On this auspicious day I have decided to tackle the fascinating, the intriguing and extremely controversial topic regarding the recent detection of gravitational waves, and as I do so I am completely aware that I am miles behind the whole band wagon.
FYI, I was waiting for some time to ensure its validity.

But first, lemme t.......ell you that I do not under any circumstance employ or even think to paraphrase cheesy "trending" catchphrases; that would be beneath me. Apologies my ADHD is acting up again. Back to the matter at hand...........

What in the seven hells are these gravitational waves?

To get a brief gist of what these physicists are on about, go to the link below.
http://www.space.com/25090-big-bang-gravity-waves-discovered-video.html

Basically put these are the residual gravitational waves theorized by physicists to be proof of the inflation of the universe just moments after the big bang.
The hypothesis suggests that due to the expansion of the universe in such a short amount of time, that these waves also expanded, ergo we should be able to observe them.

Easier said than done. The theory dated back to 1965;Experimentation only began in 2006 and after a grueling nine year search finally.

 On  March 17th 2014 it was announced that the astrophysicists working with BICEP2 telescope found what looked like solid proof of these gravitational waves in the cosmic microwave background.

However things which are too good to be true, often are. Several claims have been made stirring a whirlwind of doubts as to the validity of the results gathered by the BICEP2 project, mainly revolving around space dust. Dust of all things!

How does dust affect these results you say? In the very basic sense like all things we see, space dust absorbs light and re-emits them as infrared radiation. Critics claim that the analysis published by the BICEP2 project fails to account for these emitions.This is where the true controversy begins.

In response the BICEP2 team revised their paper. In it John Kovac, key member of the BICEP 2 project, states that they did in fact take this into account. However this was yet again refuted by new information obtained by the Planck space telescope which says that ,although factored ,the Space dust was not properly accounted for in their revised paper and that the lack of proper information about this technically renders the evidence null.

However despite all opposition The BICEP 2 team stand firm and confident that their evidence is true and solid and hoping that this "space dust storm" will blow over. 

Alas this controversy shall remain unsolved at least till the end of the year. I shall meet you then or perhaps a few months after.

It truly is a matter of faith.

Do you BELIEVE in the BICEP 2 team and the gravitas of their literally astronomical find?
Or
Do you TRUST in the DUST that proves that this was just a premature blunder.

Whatever your answer is one thing is for certain.

This would be great material for an Epic Rap Battle of History.





Carpe Diem. Peace out!