Unusual Apollo pics, video and transcripts

reply to post by nataylor


None of that makes sense.

Please explain this.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/722a1123db86.jpg[/atsimg]

When it should look like this from the NASA LRV operations manual.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ddd501463b13.jpg[/atsimg]

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.

reply to post by ppk55


Dude, you must have serious eyesight problems. The forward-most upper arm clearly attaches to the bracket that I've highlighted. Your other arrow, pointing at the rear-most upper arm, isn't even visible in the diagram you posted.

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.

reply to post by ArMaP

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.

Excellent suggestion ArMaP!

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.

reply to post by -PLB-


Definitely a foot rest!

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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8794d304e967.jpg[/atsimg]

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

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/737457c8a5bc.jpg[/atsimg]

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

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ab3d997f4f6b.jpg[/atsimg]

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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/98153ffa5d11.png[/atsimg]

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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8794d304e967.jpg[/atsimg]

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

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/737457c8a5bc.jpg[/atsimg]

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.

reply to post by ppk55

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

The upper arm is attached to a angled bracket that has been show to you multiple times, with documentation in various forms.

I find your either:

A.) Ignoring the facts

B.) Have no skills to interrupt the facts about your questions, or the answers offered by other members

The answer is staring you right in the face.

Its like that old saying you can lead a horse to water.....

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the image, 3d model or anything you question. The only thing that has issues is your interpretation of what you say you see.

Originally posted by ppk55Before I move on, another photo has jumped out. And here is a problem.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ab3d997f4f6b.jpg[/atsimg]

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.

Cross sun, the camera would be set at f/5.6 or maybe f/8, as per the directions printed on the film cartridges:



The depth of field on the Hasselblad with 60mm lens focusing on an object about 4 feet away at f/8 would be under 1 foot, about what we see.

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

It's not as hard as you think. From here:

Manual focus is not as problematic as many suppose. Lens manufacturers mark the expected distance to the subject on the focus ring, and it's simply a matter of measuring or estimating the distance from the lens to the subject and setting the ring for that value.

To aid the astronauts in measuring the distance to subject, length of commonly used tools was marked on the lens. Several Apollo photographs show the tongs and scoops used as distance references.

And:

The Zeiss Biogon lens used by the astronauts had an indicator that specified the near and far boundaries of the depth of field for each combination of focus and f-stop.

Here's what the the depth of field indicator would look like (labeled "5"):



So they set the focus to the length of the tool they're using, and set the aperture to what they've been trained on and what's labeled on their film, and then, if they want to double-check, they can look at the depth of field indicators to verify their subject is going to be fully in focus. Sounds like it would actually be hard to mess that up.

reply to post by ppk55


As usual, I fail to see what your issue is here. Do you at least know which lens they were using? Also, clipping the header off of a table is silly... how are we supposed to know what the numbers mean? And could you also at least specify which mission the photo was taken on? I was able to deduce it was Apollo 15, but it would have been nice if you had simply posted a link. BTW, I'm not sure if the cameras used on the surface were capable of being focussed by the users. Do you know? Have you at least done that much research before posing your question?

Edit to add: Nataylor clearly works faster than I do!

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?

reply to post by SLAYER69

....can we all say this thread has been a bust?

Yes we could! But the OP will never ever admit that, hence the OP of three topics in one thread. You bust one issue he distracts to another.

edit to add: I sure hope it was good coffee...yet somehow I sure it was.

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.

Originally posted by ppk55
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.

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



In this better quality video you can see the Apollo 15 astronauts testing the Lunar Rover deplotyment during training:



Hope this helps you a bit.