/sci/ - Science & Math

It must've been incredible for the Apollo 12 astronauts to meet Surveyor 3. You're walking on places no human has ever been to, and you see one of the few pieces of evidence that mankind was there.

>>12428316
>But they're not dim when I can see them on Earth at night.
Can you see them out of the window of your home with the lights on? Most likely no.
>I don't understand why nobody saw any stars on the lunar surface at all or in orbit around the Moon through both lunar days and nights.
The manned missions only happened during lunar day.
>They have every single possible opportunity to see them
Not if they're working on a moderately reflective surface during day.
>they did not take any pictures of them.
Because they had much more important things to photograph; the mission that they're doing. Their cameras were set to see well lit objects on the moon, and not seeing stars. If their cameras were set to see the stars, then their mission pictures would be overexposed into a bright blobby mess thus defeating the purpose of taking photos of the lunar mission.

>>11866541
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera
>Starting with Apollo 7, a camera was carried on every Apollo command module (CM) except Apollo 9. For each lunar landing mission, a camera was also placed inside the Apollo Lunar Module (LM) descent stage's modularized equipment stowage assembly (MESA). Positioning the camera in the MESA made it possible to telecast the astronauts' first steps as they climbed down the LM's ladder at the start of a mission's first moonwalk/EVA. Afterwards, the camera would be detached from its mount in the MESA, mounted on a tripod and carried away from the LM to show the EVA's progress; or, mounted on a Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV), where it could be remotely controlled from Mission Control on Earth.
tl:dr - There was a remote controlled camera placed away from the ascent vehicle

>>11803288
Landers are cool, too.

>>11708591
It's not real until someone builds a sounding rocket.

What edition do you all want for the next thread?

>top 10 space reunions

>>11308905
>that's all theoretical
No. Much of it has been experimentally confirmed.

>None of us have been there
http://www.clavius.org/

>we don't even know if it's even a physical thing that can be landed on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lunar_probes