anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover from earth?

On Jun 20, 1:58 pm, Lloyd Erlick Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote:
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 themoon
when they left, is it visible from here?

Does anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover??

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

Tim spake thus:

Lloyd Erlick wrote:

Yet they can resolve individual tiles on the
Shuttle with scopes on the ground. Subtending
is better at close range, eh? ...

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."

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 wrote:

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

On Jun 23, 6:21 pm, Tim wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
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.

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

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/...ar_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/c12567a8003b58b...2571e100393a1b

darkroommike

Lloyd Erlick wrote:
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:
________________________________

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:06:06 -0500,
darkroommike
wrote:

what's the point of your question




June 25, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

To stimulate conversation.

regards,
--le

On Jun 23, 8:47 am, John Boy wrote:
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

"Frank" wrote
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 _****ed_.

--
Nicholas 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

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

darkroommike

Lloyd Erlick wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:06:06 -0500,
darkroommike
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

Lloyd Erlick wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:06:06 -0500,
darkroommike
wrote:

what's the point of your question




June 25, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

To stimulate conversation.

regards,
--le