早有人反驳过了

2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.

• The film was kept in metal containers that stopped radiation from fogging the film's emulsion.^[75] Furthermore, film carried by unmanned lunar probes such as the Lunar Orbiter and Luna 3 (which used on-board film development processes) was not fogged.

3. The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.

• There is no atmosphere to efficiently bind lunar surface heat to devices (such as cameras) that are not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. The physics of radiative heat transfer are thoroughly understood, and the proper use of passive optical coatings and paints was enough to control the temperature of the film within the cameras; Moon lander temperatures were controlled with similar coatings that gave them a gold color. Also, while the Moon's surface does get very hot at lunar noon, every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing site. During the longer stays, the astronauts did notice increased cooling loads on their spacesuits as the sun continued to rise and the surface temperature increased, but the effect was easily countered by the passive and active cooling systems.^[76] The film was not in direct sunlight, so it wasn't overheated.^[77] Note: The Moon's day is about 29½ Earth days long, meaning that one Moon day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly fifteen days.

[75] ^ Plait 2002, pp. 162–63

[76] ^ Plait 2002, pp. 165–67

[77] ^ "Clavius: Environment - heat". Clavius.org. http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html. Retrieved November 25, 2008.

所有跟帖： 

• 哈。所见略同，原来早就有人分析过了。 -TBz- ♂ (0 bytes) () 11/08/2011 postreply 15:51:57

• 这也叫反驳？最多叫个解释 -ZFQ- ♂ (342 bytes) () 11/08/2011 postreply 17:11:29

• 你管那个叫什么无所谓，反正就是解释为啥你的那种说法不对呗。 -viewfinder- ♀ (231 bytes) () 11/08/2011 postreply 17:36:35

• Really? -ZFQ- ♂ (426 bytes) () 11/08/2011 postreply 18:19:36