It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unusual Apollo pics, video and transcripts

page: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


You're right, it could not be sliding down at the time those photos were taken, according to the Lunar Surface Journal the rover slid a little downhill, and I thought it was at that time.




posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Yes, the US had only 15 minutes' experience when Kennedy announced the intention to go to the Moon (although the Apollo program was started the previous year), but at the end of that year they already had almost 54 hours of experience, and they were still seven years away from Apollo 11.

Many flights were made between 1961 and 1969, some longer than the Apollo 11 flight.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
You're right, it could not be sliding down at the time those photos were taken


So what I'm wondering and I guess a lot of other people are is how can those back wheels be suspended in mid air ?



edit: grammar

[edit on 20-6-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
So what I'm wondering and I guess a lot of other people is, how can those back wheels be suspended in mid air ?


The wheel in the back is on the ground. Like this car on earth:

www.motorvista.com...



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


The ground is very uneven...the LRV is not very heavy, nor does it have its weight distribution balanced well. Meaning, it won't neccissarily sit on all four wheels, on that uneven terrain, at all times.

Further, wheel behind the one showing raised slightly could be resting on terrain that projects up, slightly higher than where the visible wheel is "suspended"...in order for that wheel tread to come all the way down, would require more weight, and the frame fo the LRV would have to be able to twist sufficiently.

ONE or two photos, of a parked LRV that looks odd, on a very rocky and unnlevel surface, isn't much of a puzzlement....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-PLB- found the EXACT photo I was desperately searching for!!!




[edit on 20 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I've never heard one astronaut comment from the journal that both of the lunar rovers wheels are sticking up in the air. (as seen above)

I think they might have made mention.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


[SIGH]

Look closely....both are NOT off the ground!

ONE is, the one in the foreground of the picture.

Look at what you can see of the ground underneath, look at the shadows...there is elevated section of ground, that is the wheel out of view is resting on.

It's pretty obvious...



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
I've never heard one astronaut comment from the journal that both of the lunar rovers wheels are sticking up in the air. (as seen above)

I think they might have made mention.


1) The lunar rover had 4 wheels, so saying "both" is wrong.
2) Can you prove that the wheel in the back is not on the ground?
3) What is your explanation?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Look closely....both are NOT off the ground!


Yes they are.
Look above.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


-PLB- makes an excellent point: "What is your explanation?" Why would NASA "stage" such an outrageous picture? Didn't they have experts to make sure mistakes like this didn't happen? How did it ever get past the omniscient NASA censors? Or was it just a really funky parking job by some space happy astronauts?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Here is an image that shows it is probable that the back wheel is on the ground. I drew a circle where the wheel is, and drew lines parallel to the shadow. The green point is where the parallel lines are exactly under the circle. Not surprisingly, the green dot is exactly where you would expect it if the wheel was touching the ground.

74.86.77.121...

Although even if it wasn't, it would not be proof that it was floating, as we can not see the differences in terrain levels behind the rear wheel that is in the front. Anything could be there, including a big rock the wheel is resting on. But this kind of speculation is not necessary in this case.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


How can you say that they are both off the ground (or anyone say that the other wheel is on the ground) when we cannot see it? At least I cannot see the other wheel in any of these photos.





Unless I'm missing something.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thanks for the enlargements....granted, the angle is such you cannot see the fourth wheel...can only surmise, based on knowledge of physics, and LRV design. AND, attempting to interpolate terrain features, based in part on shadowing.

I went to history.nasa.gov... to check the photo catalogs: history.nasa.gov...

#86-11659 and -11660 were taken during EVA 2, at Station 6A. Notes add that the Sun's elevation angle was 30 degrees, and the photos were shot 'Cross Sun'. (This is on page 62 of the online catalog .pdf file).

Will check other Journal entries to see if it's discussed....

OK, I'm back to continue my report:

history.nasa.gov...


145:09:21 Allen: (Sounding exceptionally attentive) Roger, Jim and Dave. Proceed very carefully now, please.
145:09:26 Scott: Oh, we are. We're doing it really cool.

145:09:31 Allen: Super cool.

145:09:35 Scott: Super cool. (Long Pause)

[Figure 5-95 from the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report shows the two parking places Dave used at this stop. Note that the S-curve in the figure is not the path that Dave actually followed. As mentioned above, the dialog and the evidence in photos AS15-90- 12194 to 12198 indicate that Dave backed up until he was east of Jim and then started downhill.]
[Using the available evidence, I have sketched the manuevers Dave is more likely to have made.]

[Firstly, photos AS15-86- 11658 and 11659, which Dave takes at 145:15:16, shows the Rover at the second parking place with Jim standing beside it, holding it steady. Each of the frames is about 30 degrees wide and the approximate field-of-view in 11659 is indicated by the two blue lines extending northeastward. The solid red line within that field-of-view approximates the Rover tracks that can be seen behind the Rover in both photos.]

>snip<

[As mentioned above, the dialog suggests that Dave planned to drive in reverse far enough east so that he would be able to drive cross-slope to the new parking spot. This part of the drive is entirely conjectural. After reviewing a draft of the revised plan view in June 2003, Dave wrote, "It sure fits what I recall."]

145:10:10 Scott: How am I doing, Jim?


Just a snippet from the transcript, with the notes that are added in to the Lunar Surface Journal accounts.

Next, I'll look for the diagrams they referenced....

But first, here's something from the list of photos, with explanations and descriptions for them:

history.nasa.gov...


AS15-86-11658 (OF300) ( 254k or 1053k )
145:15:16 Dave placed his tongs on top of the Station 6a boulder while he took this picture across the top of the rock. Note that the left-rear wheel of the Rover is off the ground. Jim is standing at his side of the vehicle, holding on to it. It is a shame that he didn't take a picture of Dave working at the rock.
AS15-86-11659 (OF300) ( 231k or 988k )
145:15:16 Dave stepped to his left to take this stereo companion to 11658.


OK, from the horses' mouths, so to speak...

AND, to repeat (from the NASA site), in color, the photo OP has been using, AS15-86-11659:





(I've added links to the sketches mentioned in the narrative, up above..)








[edit on 20 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
im not sure but i think its to do with the light reflecyting from the moon or a simpler answer is that there are no stars in a movie studio.
It is original i think



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Apart from the unusual images above, I have another one.

It concerns the lack of detail in the mountains on the moon, as taken by the Apollo astronauts with their 70mm Hasselblad cameras.

This is compared to the pictures taken 6 years earlier by a probe called Lunar Orbiter 2. Now as far as I'm aware the probe did not have such a wonderful camera as the Hasselblad on board.

I've chosen the photo from Apollo 17 that shows the MOST detail in the mountains. However if you can find a better one from other Apollo missions, I welcome it so we can compare the details to the lunar probe photos.

A good starting point for nasa images is here.
www.lpi.usra.edu...

The lack of detail in the mountains from all apollo photos is one of my great concerns.

Here is the first comparison.




posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


You do realize that the amount of "detail" depends upon the angle of the sun, and the texture of the specific topographical feature, don't you? You've just posted two photos of completely different features clearly lit from different angles. Why are you "concerned?" I thought you believed it was all shot in a studio. Did they change production designers or something?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


My issue is. Why do none of the apollo lunar surface photos show the same explicit detail in the mountains as the lower quality probe photos ?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Because the landings took place in the lowlands... what you see are hills, not mountains. What is your explanation?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


In this pic from Apollo 17, these are described as mountains.


history.nasa.gov...

"(West) Family Mountain is beyond the high-gain tail and (Old) Family Mountain is above the TV camera."
history.nasa.gov...

"The Apollo 17 crew chose the name "Family Mountain" for one of the mountains guarding the western entrance to Taurus-Littrow "to honor the families of the crew members and their associates. Their sacrifices go unrecorded but not unrecognized."

"The evidence presented below indicates that, prior to the mission, the name "Family Mountain" was applied to a mountain just west of the Scarp and near the base of the North Massif but that, during the mission, the crew applied the name to a larger peak, more prominent as seen from the LM, that lies west of the South Massif.
"

Why in the above quote does NASA need to say 'the evidence presented below etc. etc.' Why do they need to present evidence.

And why are the pictures of family mountain (which is what the trained astronauts first called them) lacking so much detail compared to the probes view of similar mountains.



Have a good read of this page .. If ever you needed to cover something up, this is a great read in how to attempt to do it.

history.nasa.gov...

backtracking the whole way.

edit: can anyone at all find one apollo photo from the surface, taken by the astronauts on any mission that looks anything like the shot from the probe ??

There were six missions that supposedly landed men and 6000 photos, so surely one looks something like it.

edit: fixed link

[edit on 22-6-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Why in the above quote does NASA need to say 'the evidence presented below etc. etc.' Why do they need to present evidence.


Because:



"during the mission, the crew applied the name to a larger peak, more prominent as seen from the LM, that lies west of the South Massif."


Don't you even bother to read what you post? There was some confusion over which mountain the astronauts were referring to. Odd, you wouldn't find that sort of confusion on a movie set, would you?

BTW, which mountains are those in the Orbiter photo that you cropped? It would be nice to see that enlargement in its original context. After all, we have no way of comparing the scale of the two images, do we?

Edit to correct formatting.


[edit on 22-6-2010 by DJW001]




top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join