 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / June 2007anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover from earth?
June 20, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, hq.nasa.gov.html There are really beautiful pictures from the moon. My question: if all that hardware was just left sitting out on the surfce of the moon when they left, is it visible from here? Does anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover?? regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > June 20, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > email: portrait@heylloyd.com > ________________________________ I did, but the lighting was pretty flat, and I couldn't get the fill-flash right! I used a Holga... Ken Hart spake thus: >>June 20, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I used a Holga... ... with the accessory super-tele 5000 mm mirror lens, I take it?  SignatureAny system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa. This is an inviolable rule. - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > Ken Hart spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > ... with the accessory super-tele 5000 mm mirror lens, I take it? ... and the vintage image-stabilizer? (4 cubic yards of concrete with a tripod-mount on top) > June 20, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > ________________________________ > -- With the Hubble, perhaps ... ? >June 20, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >email: portrait@heylloyd.com >________________________________ Medium to good results with a Box Brownie. Had wee bit of trouble getting a spool for it. > Does anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover?? In fact NASA has photographed it since the original landing. They found it up on blocks with the wheels stolen; proof that malicious alien life exists on the moon - and on earth! > > Does anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover?? > > In fact NASA has photographed it since the original landing. They found > it up on blocks with the wheels stolen; proof that malicious alien life > exists on the moon - and on earth! They must have parked in my old neighborhood in the East New York section of Brooklyn > > > Does anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover?? > > In fact NASA has photographed it since the original landing. They found > > it up on blocks with the wheels stolen; > They must have parked in my old neighborhood in the East New York > section of Brooklyn Nope. It still sits, on blocks now, in the middle of sound stage #51 on the back lot at MGM film studios. The wheels got sold on ebay -- NASA was _pissed_. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com Llyod asks: > Does anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover?? Google sez: http://www.wonderquest.com/hubble.htm SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >Llyod asks: >> Does anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover?? > >Google sez: >http://www.wonderquest.com/hubble.htm June 22, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, Yet they can resolve individual tiles on the Shuttle with scopes on the ground. Subtending is better at close range, eh? ... regards, --le > Yet they can resolve individual tiles on the > Shuttle with scopes on the ground. Subtending > is better at close range, eh? ... > > regards, > --le With the Shuttle at 320km altitude (same as the ISS), a tile seen from the ground is approx 0.13 arc-seconds across. The lunar rovers are more than a thousand times further away, and seen from the Earth would be approx 0.002 arc-seconds across. There's a nice explanation of what it would take to photograph the lunar rovers are explained on this page: <http://calgary.rasc.ca/moonscope.htm> In short, "it would probably be just as expensive to build the required telescope as it would cost to go there and take a picture with a normal camera." -Tim Tim spake thus: >> Yet they can resolve individual tiles on the >> Shuttle with scopes on the ground. Subtending [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > telescope as it would cost to go there and take a picture with a normal > camera." So much for that oft-repeated canard about being able to read license plates from some Super-Duper Ultra-High-Resolution Satellite (repeated so often that it's taken for granted by most people). Anyone care to demolish this one? and show your work? SignatureAny system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa. This is an inviolable rule. - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > So much for that oft-repeated canard about being able to read license > plates from some Super-Duper Ultra-High-Resolution Satellite (repeated > so often that it's taken for granted by most people). Anyone care to > demolish this one? and show your work? Hmm. The angular resolution of a perfect telescope (in radians) is 1.4 L/D, where L is the wavelength of the light (around 550nm), and D is the diameter of the mirror. If your telescope is in a low orbit at 300km, and you need a resolution of 10mm to read a licence plate, then 1.4 L/D = 0.01/300000 you'd need a mirror 23m across, almost ten times the diameter of Hubble. And that's ignoring atmospheric distortion. That's why, in order to satisfy the conspiracy theorists, the license-plate cameras here in Switzerland are installed in a very-low geosynchronous orbit: on lamp posts. Launch costs are minimal. If anyone were to travel to the moon to photograph the lunar landers, I'd recommend HP5+ for ease of processing on the lunar surface. (phew, back on topic) -Tim > > So much for that oft-repeated canard about being able to read license > > plates from some Super-Duper Ultra-High-Resolution Satellite (repeated [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > license-plate cameras here in Switzerland are installed in a very-low > geosynchronous orbit: on lamp posts. Launch costs are minimal. It doesn't matter how many people say it's true if it isn't. My back-of-the-envelope calculations say that Hubble misses the mark by a factor of about 10 - glad to see my numbers confirmed. And there is still that pesky atmosphere in the way. If I really had to do it I'd look at image processing (speckle interferometry and aperture synthesis come to mind), and take a long, hard look at which wavelengths give me the best compromise between transparency and steadiness. But... I find the concept operationally unsound. For the cost of one such satellite (gigabucks, even for something the size of Hubble) you could have a *lot* of agents on the ground, not only noting license numbers, but snooping in other ways too. I just can't see a real-life Smiley or Karla (or Admiral Greer, for that matter) approving such a project. HP5+ really is idiot-proof: I'd take it to the moon too. The Apollo missions used a couple of special order Ektachrome emulsions, plus black and white films - one of which was plain old Panatomic X. Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..." ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte > Llyod asks: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Metershttp://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm > n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com I already knew the answer, but did the numbers anyway: figure out what angle a meter-size object subtends at the Moon's distance, figure out how big a telescope you would need to resolve it. You have to ignore Earth's atmosphere. On nights of good seeing I amuse myself by counting craters on the floor of Plato, but those are still 1000 times the size of Apollo lunar hardware. Betelgeuse subtends a larger angle than a Lunar Rover on the Moon. Go figure. Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..." ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte > June 20, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > regards, > --le "anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover from earth?" At roughly one meter/pixel, as such it would be extremely fuzzy. - "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell - Brad Guth I did using my 1700mm f/4 on my Hasselblad, it was a pain though since I had to build a ramp in my backyard since the standard truck mount is not an equatorial mount. No seriously, what's the point of your question, the LEM is a pretty small target. see: http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html and if you prefer a Canadian citation, Lloyd: http://calgary.rasc.ca/moonscope.htm But for anyone that's curious this is the longest lens in a Hasselblad mount (note the pintles on the sides of the lens): http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/8baac109cb80bddfc12571e100393a1b darkroommike > June 20, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > email: portrait@heylloyd.com > ________________________________ On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:06:06 -0500, darkroommike <darkroommike@cableone.net> wrote: >what's the point of your question June 25, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, To stimulate conversation. regards, --le Ah, I see, so then this is just an off topic post rather than a fake moon landing rant, very well. darkroommike > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:06:06 -0500, > darkroommike <darkroommike@cableone.net> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > regards, > --le Ah, I see, so then this is just an off topic post rather than a fake moon landing rant, very well. darkroommike > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:06:06 -0500, > darkroommike <darkroommike@cableone.net> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > regards, > --le |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.