=====
From grimmg@hotmail.com:
work the ground !

=====
From uwezi@geocities.com:
a landmark we left behind somewhere else ....
even though it looks different now - doesn't 
it? (as all man we sent up came back in the landers)

The missing stars can only be explained by the low dynamic 
range of the cameras used in these days....

=====
From jake@snafu.de:
Good lander module.

=====
From tglover@nettally.com:
Descent stage texture looks pretty good - mabe scale it down some so
crinkles are smaller -- remember, it was gold foil!  I remember the ascent
stage being black and white patterns -- I think.

This appears to be one of the best LL shots in the competition.  Good
modelling and texturing.  The lunar surface was a little more brown, but you
got the powdery aspect down pretty good -- need some micro-craters.

Strange cloud layout on the earth -- I know this is due to bozo  but maybe
scale up in x direction to give weather systems look


=====
From Alain.Culos@bigfoot.com:
I guess the reason why photographs on the moon do not show stars is that the
ground light is so bright that by comparison stars are very faint. Remember
there is no atmospheric attenuation on the moon and the sun does shine hard.
You'd see a lot more stars than on earth if you were on the dark side of the
moon.
The moon's ground texture is rather good but I think it would still need work
to
look right. A good submission.

=====
From gmccarter@hotmail.com:
I wish the camera viewpoint was lower -- it's about twelve feet off the ground.
It would be interesting if you could add the blast effects on the lunar
surface.

=====
From clem@dhol.com:
Not bad.  I don't really like the lander texture.  The lunar 
surface is ok, but footprints would have helped immensely.  
I think that you should have shown stars despite the 
photos.  As to the lack of stars in the photos, two guesses: 
The so-called "lunar landing" was shot on a soundstage 
and they forgot the starry backdrop :) or the large amount 
of reflected light from the lunar surface, the lander and the 
earth forced them to use an exposure that couldn't pick up 
the stars to avoid washing out the ground detail.

=====
From peter@table76.demon.co.uk:
My guess is, someone standing there would see stars, but a proper exposure for
the moon and earth isn't enough to show stars, and a proper exposure for the
stars would overexpose everything else.