anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover from earth?

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Lloyd Erlick, Jun 20, 2007.

  1. Lloyd Erlick

    Lloyd Erlick Guest

    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:
    ________________________________
    --
     
    Lloyd Erlick, Jun 20, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Lloyd Erlick

    Ken Hart Guest

    I did, but the lighting was pretty flat, and I couldn't get the fill-flash
    right!

    I used a Holga...
     
    Ken Hart, Jun 21, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ken Hart spake thus:
    .... with the accessory super-tele 5000 mm mirror lens, I take it?


    --
    Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
    of use of the word "****" 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)
     
    David Nebenzahl, Jun 21, 2007
    #3
  4. Lloyd Erlick

    Peter Guest

    With the Hubble, perhaps ... ?
     
    Peter, Jun 22, 2007
    #4
  5. Lloyd Erlick

    Billy Guest

    Medium to good results with a Box Brownie.
    Had wee bit of trouble getting a spool for it.
     
    Billy, Jun 22, 2007
    #5
  6. Lloyd Erlick

    Dana Myers Guest

    .... and the vintage image-stabilizer? (4 cubic yards of concrete with
    a tripod-mount on top)
     
    Dana Myers, Jun 22, 2007
    #6
  7. Nicholas O. Lindan, Jun 22, 2007
    #7
  8. Lloyd Erlick

    Lloyd Erlick Guest




    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
     
    Lloyd Erlick, Jun 22, 2007
    #8
  9. 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
     
    laura halliday, Jun 22, 2007
    #9
  10. Lloyd Erlick

    John Boy Guest

    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!
     
    John Boy, Jun 23, 2007
    #10
  11. Lloyd Erlick

    Tim Guest

    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, Jun 23, 2007
    #11
  12. Lloyd Erlick

    BradGuth Guest

    "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
     
    BradGuth, Jun 23, 2007
    #12
  13. Tim spake thus:
    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?


    --
    Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
    of use of the word "****" 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)
     
    David Nebenzahl, Jun 24, 2007
    #13
  14. Lloyd Erlick

    Tim Guest

    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
     
    Tim, Jun 24, 2007
    #14
  15. 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
     
    laura halliday, Jun 24, 2007
    #15
  16. Lloyd Erlick

    darkroommike Guest

    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
     
    darkroommike, Jun 24, 2007
    #16
  17. Lloyd Erlick

    Lloyd Erlick Guest




    June 25, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

    To stimulate conversation.

    regards,
    --le
     
    Lloyd Erlick, Jun 25, 2007
    #17
  18. Lloyd Erlick

    Frank Guest

    They must have parked in my old neighborhood in the East New York
    section of Brooklyn
     
    Frank, Jun 28, 2007
    #18
  19. 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_.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Jun 28, 2007
    #19
  20. Lloyd Erlick

    darkroommike Guest

    Ah, I see, so then this is just an off topic post rather
    than a fake moon landing rant, very well.

    darkroommike
     
    darkroommike, Jun 28, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.