Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Unusual Apollo pics, video and transcripts

page: 24
9
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60
This quality is not very good, but this video shows astronauts Scott and Irwin deploying the Lunar Rover during the Apollo 15 mission:


Awesome thanks ziggy,

Do you know where I could find the version of this footage where the film wasn't panned and scanned.
ie. where it wasn't zoomed into in post production and then panned across. Would help me a lot.




posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Try this page.

Although you have to download several files, I think they have the whole process, and it's from an official NASA site.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55I'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.


And you would be wrong (as usual). This is called the "if I ran the zoo" fallacy - thinking that, just because you think it should have been done a certain way, that the people involved should think the same way.

Wrong again, wrong as usual. There was no way to set-up the camera close enough to capture the intricacies of the mechanism without getting in the way of the equipment and the astronauts working on it. Furthermore, the act of setting-up the camera took time away from an already crowded schedule, and was omitted from both Apollo 16 & 17. The engineers had something much more effective: The crew experience as relayed both real-time and in the post mission debrief. When you read the transcripts, the astronauts go into great detail about what did and did not work as planned.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
And you would be wrong (as usual). This is called the "if I ran the zoo" fallacy


You're quite a rude person. What makes you right? Did you accompany the astronauts to the moon?


Originally posted by Saint Exupery
There was no way to set-up the camera close enough to capture the intricacies of the mechanism without getting in the way of the equipment and the astronauts working on it.


I'm asking why they didn't move the camera just that little bit further away, like they did later on, to get a full frame shot of the deployment of the rover.

In fact in this clip you can see them moving the camera quite easily. Takes about 10-15 seconds.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

So why couldn't they move the camera like this prior to the critical deployment phase of the LRV?

In fact during Apollo 11, there was a long back and forth communication between the ground the the astronauts regarding how to frame the shot. It seems for 10 minutes the camera was moved around quite freely.



If they could move the camera around that much on the first 'moon landing' then why couldn't they move it just that little bit on apollo 15 to show the full deployment of the first rover on the moon?

Seeing as it cost an alleged $38 Million dollars back in 1970, you'd think they would want at least one full frame shot of the deployment process on it's very first mission. So many engineers would have been devastated to not see a full frame shot of it's deployment.

In regards to the timelapse vision and the film showing the unfolding of the LRV and it's suspension components on earth, I'll post more on that shortly. And as the board owners have requested, please try to be civil.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



You're quite a rude person. What makes you right? Did you accompany the astronauts to the moon?


I find that you use this tactic far to often when someone points out the fallacy of your argument. It in no way shape or form is it rude to explain your point as being illogical.

What makes you even more illogical, is that you respond with questions or assertions, that have nothing to do with anything:


What makes you right?
Well seeing how you cannot even see a FOOTREST correctly...
I would say suffice to say that your position and stance on the subject is anything but stellar.

Did you accompany the astronauts to the moon?
What does that have to do with anything???

You really lack thinking skills, anyone with an decent level education would never had said something so, well illogical.


Did you accompany the astronauts to the moon?


Wow ppk55, just wow!







edit on 3-11-2010 by theability because: mistype



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Just for the record:


If you don't like that one, try this:


I hope this helps.
edit on 4-11-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to fix embedding.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
And you would be wrong (as usual). This is called the "if I ran the zoo" fallacy


You're quite a rude person.


Ad hominium. Pointing out that someone is wrong is not rude. Pointing out that someone is wrong a lot is not rude. Pointing out logical fallacies in someone's arguement is not rude. Accusing or insinuating that 400,000 dedicated, engineers, technicians, laborers, scientists, managers and astronauts - who worked hard and sacrificed much for years to accomplish something very difficult and inspiring - of being nothing more than con-men and life-long liars, simply because you don't understand what they did or how or why (or even what you're looking at in a photograph) now THAT is rude.


What makes you right?


The facts.


Did you accompany the astronauts to the moon?


Strawman argument. Direct participation is not required to know if an event occurred. By analogy, How do you know that Germany invaded Poland in 1939? Did you accompany the Wehrmacht?


I'm asking why they didn't move the camera just that little bit further away, like they did later on, to get a full frame shot of the deployment of the rover.

In fact in this clip you can see them moving the camera quite easily. Takes about 10-15 seconds.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

So why couldn't they move the camera like this prior to the critical deployment phase of the LRV?


For what it's worth, I'm also frustrated by by the bad framing; but when you see the video and hear the audio, it's obvious what happened: Jim Irwin (who couldn't see the video image) pointed the camera directly at the LM. The Capcom (Joe Allen - another astronaut) asked him to turn the camera to the right. Irwin did so, Allen said, "OK", Irwin let go of the camera - which rotated slightly back to the left - and loped off to help Dave Scott deploy the rover.
The stowed rover was still in full frame, but as it transpired, part of the deployment area was out of frame. At that point, it would not have been appropriate to tell Irwin to stop what he was doing and go back to fiddle with the camera. Accomplishing the deployment was, after all, more important than documenting it - When you watch and listen to all of the Apollo EVAs (which were tightly scheduled - too tightly in the opinion of every astronaut) you can hear them constantly making similar compromises.
After they got the rover deployed and drivable, then they took the time to shift the camera to document the final assembly (That video is fun to watch. Scott is cutting tie-wraps and casually tossing them away, and in 1/6th G, they go quite a long way).


In fact during Apollo 11, there was a long back and forth communication between the ground the the astronauts regarding how to frame the shot. It seems for 10 minutes the camera was moved around quite freely.


Indeed. The time for that activity came from just such a compromise. Neil Armstrong had trained to deploy the large S-band antenna (shown here in training, and here deployed on Apollo 14), which would have improved the quality of the video on that EVA. When Capcom told him the video quality was adequate, he instead used the time alloted for antenna deployment to work with the camera. Armstrong later said, "I was fully prepared to deploy the antenna, and I practiced with it a bunch of times so I wouldn't call it low priority. But we were glad that we didn't have to take the time to do that."


If they could move the camera around that much on the first 'moon landing' then why couldn't they move it just that little bit on apollo 15 to show the full deployment of the first rover on the moon?


Because they were busy. They had to deploy and assemble the LRV, unpack the ALSEP, do a geology traverse, return and deploy the ALSEP. Remember that as far as the crew knew, the camera was properly positioned. Capcom felt no need to distract them with minor fiddling.


Seeing as it cost an alleged $38 Million dollars back in 1970, you'd think they would want at least one full frame shot of the deployment process on it's very first mission.


No, I wouldn't. Their priority was to explore the Moon. Deployment details could wait for the post-mission debrief.


So many engineers would have been devastated to not see a full frame shot of it's deployment.


***WAAAAA!!!*** No, they wouldn't. They understood what their creation was there for, and were quite proud of helping to make it happen.


... as the board owners have requested, please try to be civil.


Does this mean no one is allowed to tell you you're full of it?
edit on 4-11-2010 by Saint Exupery because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Hi,

Whilst looking at the LRV suspension system, I found this photo that shows something curious beneath the rover.

The area marked as 'A' does not seem to fit with any of the background or foreground.

It's almost as if the area marked 'A' has been added in. It doesn't look natural compared to the surroundings, marked by red arrows.

What do people think?



The image is AS17-140-21493
edit on 30-11-2010 by ppk55 because: spelling



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Also, doesn't this photo of the front end of the LRV look so different to the one posted above.
It's almost a different vehicle. Look where the flag is planted in both. Except it's the same mission.
Apollo 17.



This is AS17-146-22402
edit on 30-11-2010 by ppk55 because: added 'same mission'



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


You seem to have a difficult time comprehending and interpreting uneven terrain. What "flag" are you talking about, anyway?



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


You seem to be in dire need of a new "hobby".

I've long enjoyed building scale models....both plastic kits, from a wide genre.....airplanes, spacecraft (real and SciFi) mostly, and of course, bigger "boy toys" such as R/C models, from 1/8 to 1/4 scale. I tend to prefer the larger scales (depending, of course, on size of original subject).

1/48 scale is a great size, for most airplanes/spacecraft in plastic modelling.....UNLESS it's the full stack Saturn V....where 1/144 is more manageable (also, 1/144 is the scale many airliner model kits come in).

So, pick a "scale" if you wish....it will help in visualizing, too....relative sizes, comparing your models to the real thing, and real world.

I also greatly enjoy Model Railroading. My "scale" of choice there is HO. (This has a long story behind it...."HO" means 'Half-O', a reference to pre WWII-era trains scale...still popular in some circles even today!! "O" scale. Original "O" scale was based on roughly 1/48, as are the many plastic kits I mentioned earlier).

'HO' scale has been standardized to 1/87. (YES, not exactly "half-O"...that would be 1/96....but, hard to tell the difference, just by eyeballing them.)

There are compromises one must contend with, in Model R/Ring....depending on scale you choose. SIZE of your space, for the "layout" being foremost. Some hobbyists elect to go for "N" scale, in model trains..."N" is 1/160 scale, specifically. "N" and "HO" are just about equal, in popularity...."N" has the advantage of more 'oooomph' in smaller square footage (sq.metres), when set up as a track plan. DISadvantage is the smaller size of everything, of course.

ANY of these modelling hobbies, nowadays, are pretty much easy to acquire, worldwide.....VIA online shopping. MONEY, of course, is the only obstacle....and desire, I suppose.

SO......new hobby? Send your creative efforts in a new direction?? You will also LEARN a lot, from the three-dimensional aspects of assembling a model....to relate better to the two-dimensionality of photographs, that you keep analysing.......

YOU CAN EVEN buy a model of the Lunar Rover!! (LRV). An exact scale model....build it, put it together, hold it in your hand and look at it from many different angles....to learn.

There are SO MANY RESOURCES!!!!! Here, a casual online search:

www.starshipmodeler.com...

NOW....advice from someone who has the experience....you may wish to, eventually, invest in a GOOD airbrush, and the air pump, or other means to supply it air pressure....a compressor, even an old inner-tube works, with proper adaptors...... (I do NOT recommend the "canned air" sources, except for temporary/learning phases. It is way too expensive, overall. AND, the nature of the cans.....as the air inside expands, the contents cool down....and they "freeze" up. This is basic physics, BTW....). Because, to re-create "realism", you will wish to properly paint your models....traditional brushes, and "painted on" by that method, aren't suitable to models....serious models, anyway.....

Invest, also, in a variety of tools....check out THIS site: www.micromark.com...

I buy from them A LOT!!! By no means, the ONLY source, though.....


edit on 30 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Look where the flag is planted in both.


Where is a flag in either of those images?
AS17-140-21493
AS17-146-22402

Well I would ask you to point them out for me, but you have proven beyond reasonable doubt that you lack skills to identify features on Apollo imagery, so I won't waste time asking.


ppk55 what is the point of all this?



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


I think the ground looks disturbed, as if the rover wasn't at that place from the beginning and the astronauts had already disturbed the ground before moving the rover to that place.

But it's hard to tell, even with a better photo.

As for your other post, I don't see any difference between the two photos of the rover, the only difference is in the perspective, in the second photo the rover is seen more from the front and (and I think this is what makes the biggest difference) a little from below.

Edit: I forgot to say that the flag, as far as I remember it, was only painted on the fenders, but I may be wrong.
edit on 30/11/2010 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
Where is a flag in either of those images?


It's right here!





Originally posted by theability
ppk55 what is the point of all this?


Cultural vandalism, under the guise of "just asking questions."



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008


Nothing missing and mesh tyre is not sticking out its because of the angle that the picture was taken YOU must be able to see that!


I've found a new photo AS17-140-21358 that shows the same angle and this is where it gets interesting.



In this photo the fender repair appears as it should, the repair is clearly above the mesh tyre (c).

So what's going on in the top left image? This just confirms for me that the top left image is a model with the mesh protruding.

Now here is another strange pic ...



What has happened to the top part of the engine?

At first I thought it could be the kapton foil reflecting the ground, however some of the gold colour would still show, so it's not that.

So where did the top part of the engine go? A little bit of image touching up that didn't go quite right perhaps.
(and isn't that engine nozzle extension just a little too close to the ground?)

Here's the original.



Once fully zoomed out you can understand how they missed this 'little' error.

sources
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

edit on 9-1-2011 by ppk55 because: added engine nozzle extension question.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
I've found a new photo AS17-140-21358 that shows the same angle and this is where it gets interesting.

It's not exactly the same angle, it's from a slightly higher point of view, but noticeable in the change of perspective.


In this photo the fender repair appears as it should, the repair is clearly above the mesh tyre (c).
It also appears as it should in the other photo, there are only small changes, the biggest change being the difference in the direction from where the light is coming from, as you can see with this animation.




So what's going on in the top left image? This just confirms for me that the top left image is a model with the mesh protruding.
No, it just confirms that perspective can make things look different.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Yeah but....


Once fully zoomed out you can understand how they missed this 'little' error.


Problem with your "theory" is....you can go to the Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal page and see a few others, from Magazine 114, in sequence that are taken from roughly the same perspective and distance...and they ALL appear to show the same thing. (BTW...they also ALL have the same distortion in the image.....looks like some scratches on the camera lens, maybe??).


history.nasa.gov... (Cataloged under "Magazine 114/B (Color) Frames 18383-18470")

(Your "example" is #18455)


Here's #18456

#18457

Look at the others, too....via first link, see the same black scratches marring the images.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Still doing research...came back to show you this:

upload.wikimedia.org...

As you see, it's a file photo from wikicommons.

Looking straight on at the Z-Leg (the ladder, and porch, and Ascent Module egress hatch).

Look to the right (ship left). THAT is the side in photo #114-18455.

See a silvery-colored panel hanging down? THAT is what's in the image #18455, is my guess. I will now go check the schematics (if I can find them) to see if there was a compartment of some sort in that location, with a panel door that opened, dropping downward.......OK, found a diagram, looking top-down. Note the location of the Z-Leg, in the image below --- it is to the viewer's left:



Sourced from here.

So, we are looking at "Quad 1" (or quadrant number 1) in that photo you presented, up above in your post...when comparing its relative position to the Z-Leg.

THAT is where the LRV was stowed. I wanted to be absolutely certain, although that was my first guess, until I had documentation....


Deployment of the LRV from the LM quad 1 by the astronauts was achieved with a system of pulleys and braked reels using ropes and cloth tapes. The rover was folded and stored in quad 1 with the underside of the chassis facing out.
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...




....so, there you have the answer. The diagram above, in concert with other photos for reference, should be invaluable in your continued research......
edit on 9 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Now here is another strange pic ...

For that I don't have an explanation, at least not yet.



(and isn't that engine nozzle extension just a little too close to the ground?)
Yes, it is, and you can see that in other photos.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


You may have missed the discussion and explanation from another thread, regarding this:


...(and isn't that engine nozzle extension just a little too close to the ground?)...


There were, in essence, two different landing procedures that were performed, in terms of engine cut-off timing.

The "probe-contact" and the "pad-contact" methods. The probes were just about 5 feet long....any of the three, when contacting the surface would sense it via a switch on the probe end that triggered the big blue "Contact" light in the LM cockpit. The engine could be turned off at that point, and the LM would settle rest of way under the Lunar acceleration of gravity. Was designed for that minor "drop" of about 5 feet, with no damage.

heroicrelics.org...

Alternatively, when the "Contact" light illuminated, throttling down of the engine would be the proper response, with shut-down just prior to, or at landing pad contact. (Preferably still when at least a few feet up....but, as pilots, they could judge the descent rate, and cut-off the DPS accordingly, based on skill and training practice in the simulator).

Either way, by the time the engine bell nozzle was nearing the surface, the thrust output was minimal....and on shut-down, there were fractions of seconds of residual thrust gases, as the chemical reaction of the two propellant chemicals subsided...which would provide a slight "cushioning" effect.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by ppk55
Now here is another strange pic ...

For that I don't have an explanation, at least not yet.

That's part of the thermal protection. There was a cover that folded down at the bottom of the LRV as it was mounted on the LM (to protect it from thermal radiation from the descent engine). The cover was silver in color, and that's what you're seeing. It like looks like the background, but you can see the edges around it.

Here it is on the Apollo 15 LM in AP15-KSC-71PC-415:



You can watch this video from the Apollo 15 LRV deployment and see the thermal shield being released from the bottom of the rover.









 
9
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join