If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover from earth?
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) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover from earth?
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover from earth?
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover from earth?
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: ________________________________ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover from earth?
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover from earth?
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover from earth?
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover from earth?
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
anyone photogaph the ol' Lunar Rover from earth?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lunar Surface | CiccioSPICE | Digital Photography | 0 | April 15th 06 11:16 PM |
Backpacks - any experience with Lowepro Rover? | Basic Wedge | Digital Photography | 8 | February 15th 05 02:14 PM |
Backpacks - any experience with Lowepro Rover? | Basic Wedge | Digital SLR Cameras | 6 | February 14th 05 02:04 AM |
Photographing the Lunar Eclipse | Ray Paseur | Digital Photography | 1 | October 27th 04 02:27 PM |
Model 151 Diana clone - "Rover" - $15 | Nicholas O. Lindan | Medium Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | January 9th 04 01:36 AM |