Perhaps the problem is that you're looking at it from behind, and the drawing is from the front.Why don't you find a different drawing, or a photo from a different angle?

Originally posted by nataylor
Dude, you must have serious eyesight problems.

Dude, you must have serious comprehension issues, if you're proposing that the upper arm assembly is valid, then where is the lower arm assembly in proportion to the LRV operations manual diagram ?

You can't have it just one way.

Originally posted by ppk55
edit: if you're suggesting that we're looking at the top of the upper wishbone, then we should see the direct proportional result at the bottom, but we dont.

edit on 19-10-2010 by ppk55 because: added proportional result

I don't even know what that means. The suspension does not connect directly to the frame. It connects to a bracket that connects to the frame, as seen in the head-on view:

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by nataylor
Dude, you must have serious eyesight problems.

Dude, you must have serious comprehension issues, if you're proposing that the upper arm assembly is valid, then where is the lower arm assembly in proportion to the LRV operations manual diagram ?

You can't have it just one way.

What are you saying?

It's all right here:


Frame rail: Red
Upper arm bracket: Green
Upper arm: Cyan
Lower arm bracket: Yellow
Lower arm: Magenta

The same parts, highlighted in your diagram:

Frame rail: Red
Upper arm bracket: Green
Upper arm: Cyan
Lower arm bracket: Yellow
Lower arm: Magenta

The same parts, in a top-down view:

Frame rail: Red
Upper arm bracket: Green
Upper arm: Cyan
Lower arm bracket: Not visible because upper arm bracket and upper arm are on top of it
Lower arm: Magenta

Originally posted by ppk55
Is that the only word you know to try and debunk things ... 'perspective.' I should try that next time I'm in an argument .. 'no .. you're wrong .. it's all about perspective.'

You're wrong in two things: I know many words (from several languages) and I never try to debunk anything.

I think you have a problem understanding the perspective when looking at 2D images, something that happens to some people. That would explain your interpretation of many of the photos you have posted. That's why I suggested a model of LRV, it would give you the opportunity of looking at a real 3D object to compare with the photos and drawings.

Let's see how your perspective handles this one.

I don't see any problems with those, the drawing and the photo appear to show exactly the same thing, with the difference that the drawing shows a frontal view and the photo a back-to-front view.

Speaking of which, someone made a 3d computer model. A shot from more or less the same perspective is available. Maybe that will help ppk in understanding what he sees.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Speaking of which, someone made a 3d computer model.

So the model also has the upper wishbone not attached to the frame.



Yet, the NASA LRV operations manual diagram does have it attached to the frame.



Before I move on, another photo has jumped out. And here is a problem.



Apparently this was taken with a 60mm lens. with the brightness of the moon this would have required a high f-stop, meaning the depth of field would be should be larger, but this is not what we see.

We see a small depth of field. With both the foreground and background objects out of focus.

With a 60mm lens at a high f-stop everything should be pretty much in focus, you would not expect to see this variation.

One other complicating matter is how the astro could pull this shot off so perfectly given the above factors, WITHOUT A VIEWFINDER.



I doubt you could find one professional photographer that could pull this shot off, in ONE SHOT .. there was no second try. They moved on.

on with more LRV issues...

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by -PLB-
Speaking of which, someone made a 3d computer model.

So the model also has the upper wishbone not attached to the frame.

Yet, the NASA LRV operations manual diagram does have it attached to the frame.

No, it doesn't. I don't know how this can possibly be made more clear to you. You're either ignoring it or, as ArMaP suggests, you have an issue with 3D visualization of 2D projections.

Well this morning I made a nice hot pot of coffee and started reading this thread. The OP seemed to have flung one thing after another against the wall in order to see if anything sticks. The amazing part of this ENTIRE thread is that nothing has stuck. One thing after another everything has had a reasonable explanation.

So now unless the OP can post a grey alien planting the flag in a studio with a bogus horizon near the lunar rover which lacks proper suspension attachments that is parked next to papermache rocks that left no tracks getting there parked with one wheel in midair while looking at the suns bulbs filiments can we all say this thread has been a bust?

Whats really funny I am sure he claimed at the start of this or another thread that he works as a cinematographer (asked him again many times never replys) well if thats true and his employers saw his posts they would not be happy as he seems to know nothing about photography and the basic mistake re depth of field on the 60mm lens a few posts above made me

Hello, Im trying to investigate more components of the suspension and tie rods of the lunar rover, without much luck. I want to match what I see with the photos.

Can anyone point me to one of the videos that shows the lunar rover being fully deployed on the moon? Because I can't find one. Surely one exists of this intricate operation.

By that I mean, a video showing the astronauts gripping the cables that pulled it down, the unfolding of the front and rear sections including the wheels, and the final part as it is lowered onto the lunar surface.

I honestly can't find a video that shows this entire operation. I need this for part of my LRV investigation.

I'm sure it would have been a priority to shoot this in full frame so engineers could analyze how successful / unsuccessful they were with their designs.

Thanks in advance.