In other words you don't know and you are guessing.

For your information, the propulsion systems that will be used in 2020 are based on present day, already exising rocket technology. The Ares I vehicle that will launch the manned Orion spacecraft into orbit will have a first stage derived from the space shuttle solid rocket booster. The second stage will have an evolution of the J2 engine (that is the engine used on the 2nd and third stage of the Saturn V rockets used in Apollo).

The Ares V launcher (which will place the Altair lunar lander in Earth orbit) will have a first stage based on the space shuttle external tank and will also use two space shuttle derived SRBs. The main engines of the Ares V first stage will be the RS-68 engines, derived from those currently used on the Delta 4 launch vehicle. The upper stage will use the same J2-X engines (ie Apollo technology) that will be used on the Ares 1 first stage. This Ares V upper stage will be used to take the docked Orion and Altair from Earth orbit to Lunar orbit.

So you see we have a problem with your little theory. Given that the engine that will propel astronauts from the Earth to the Moon in 2020 is basically the same technology as that which did it in 1969 either you must be wrong about it not being possible in 1969 OR you must be wrong about it being possible in 2020. Either way your theory is wrong.

Given that the Soviet Union and the USA had been capable of sending unmanned vehicles to the Moon from as early as 1959 and soft anding them there from 1966 what do you think it was that made it impossible to do the same thing with manned spacecraft?

If NASA perpetrated a hoax, it is not long ago, it is ongoing to this day. It would be recruiting young people to maintain this hoax today, and for all time to come. How could you be proud of an agency that would maintain such a tremendous lie?

Only We know that.

Only We know that.

Ok... and those little nuggets of "wisdom" are supposed to mean what, exactly...?



Cz

Quick points:

1. Radiation through VAB. Please don't forget that exposure levels that were acceptable in 1967-1972 may not be considered acceptable now. Think about permissible exposures for people like nuclear power-plant workers, etc.

2. Apollo 8. Not only was there a threat of a Soviet gazumping, but the LM was not going to be ready for the originally scheduled Apollo 8 flight. That meant suspending the programme until the LM was ready, or needlessly repeating flight on which all the goals had been achieved.

I was talking about tracks between the front and rear wheels.The track you observed is not even aligned with the roover.It was all fake.

All your base am belong to us.

Reading about the lunar rovers and the tyre track topic, i found this image. I got to wondering how it was acheived, the tracks i mean as the turning circle is 'tight' to say the least, anyone?

Source in full

Belial

Look at this film footage of the rover during Apollo 16. In particular look around the half-way mark when the rover is turning. You can see it does indeed have a tight turning circle, due in part to the fact that it had 4-wheel steering. Its smallest turning circle was actually 3.1 metres. More info here.

So how is this relevant? I mean, you do understand that the rover was light enough to be picked up and moved by the astronauts, so that any rover tracks (or the lack of same) mean absolutely nothing.

You do understand that, right??

THe LRV utilized four-wheel steering, with the front and rear sets turning in opposite directions i.e. to turn left, the front wheels would turn left, the rear wheels would turn right.

From Wikipedia - Lunar Rover


From Lunar Rover Operations Handbook
Section 1 - Mobility Subsystems - Steering (page 1-15)




Cz

You are wrong.

Starting with this picture (which is the picture immediately following the one used in the previous posts) one can clearly see the rover tracks under the rover.

AS15-92-12447


Link to Hi-Res version:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-92-12447HR.jpg

In the picture below, I have used the hi-res version, enhanced brightness by about 25%, enhanced contrast by about 15%, then cut out the image of the rover from the full-size original and superimposed it on a size-reduced version of the original picture. I have drawn red lines to indicate when the tracks are located and included the blue arrows to further emphasize the tracks locations.



Perhaps if you did even a small amount of research before making your fanciful claims, you would actually see where you are wrong regarding your idea that the Moon landings were faked.

However, I won't be holding my breath for that to happen.


Cz

Oh i understand it, bud. As for relevance, I was making an observation based on the image i put forward, as for the turning circle of 3.1 metres, that looks a lot tighter than 3.1 metres to me, and it does NOT look like it was lifted up either there is a clear and visible turned tyre track LESS then the 3.1 metres given?
I am also aware of the four wheel drive, this still does not account for the turning circle nor the lack of 'double wheel tracks' that should be visible.

An assumption often made by many HBs is that it was impossible for astronaut activity around the LM to cover up tracks. Why they would make this assumption I don't really know. There are countless examples of astronaut bootprints and kicked up dust obscuring earlier activity, including tyre tread marks.

Look at this series of photos from Apollo 15.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11057.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11058.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11059.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11060.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11061.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11062.jpg

See how the tyre tracks become obscured in the frames around the LRV due to astronaut activity.

Here's something interesting from your source website:



I say its interesting because the LRV did NOT use a hydraulic steering system, but rather an electrical one as I described in my previous post about this. The only references to any liquids I can find in the Operation Handbook is in reference to a damper in the suspension (essentially, the "shock absorber"). There are references to various lubricants used on the LRV trainer vehicle, but nothing I can find with regards to the actual flown vehicles.

I'm not necessarily saying your source is wrong, but I would certainly say the writer of that page is definitely uninformed of the specifics of the vehicle.


Cz

Thanks for the informative information, but as it is NOT my site nor any affiliation to it, i cannot comment other than it was simply a link to picture showing unusual wheel tracks, and the site came with it 'so to speak'.

My car has a turning radius of probably 40 or more feet (small-ish car, handles like a land barge, though), but if I drive straight, stop, turn the wheel completely to one side then go forward into the turn, the turning radius, based on the tracks left by the tire, appears to be smaller, This can be easily demonstrated on a dirt road or in the snow, even on a slightly damp road.

Does anyone know which exact picture this is?


It might be revealing or at least interesting to see the full-frame, hi-res pic, which might reveal more detail of the LRV tracks.


Cz

I wasn't trying to indicate any fault on your part, and I apologize if that's the impression my comments gave.


Cz

Oh yes lets put this to bed so to speak, we don't want any 'none' nasa images fudging the topic, do we?
This as been posted to show an unusual scene - nothing more, NO intent to bend or show false imaging on my part, i can assure you
So can anyone put a number to the image please?

This added to say - it's all good czero 101

No worries Belial... I'm just curious as to which pic it is, and as I said in my post, perhaps seeing the full-frame pic will help in better understanding what you have pointed out.



Cz

Of course in that case you would have to explain why the "superior" Russians would be fooled by the hoax.

Appearentely they didn't notice all this "obvious" mistakes that the HoaxBelievers write about.

Thank you very much Haz...as always, I appreciate your kind comments.


And , to MacDDT, who added...




Thanks to you as well, and you're very welcome!


However, it's a little difficult for me to accept such words without letting you folks know that I get a wee bit frustrated from time to time...


And, as is apparent, Waspie knows this all too well!




Waspie knows me, and he's right.

No point in hiding it...the man just knows!


In fact, there have been a couple times where I've approached the point of saying something I shouldn't ought to in such a venue of discussion (I can be short, and blunt, too!)...and where I have been advised to the contrary by those who posess the requisite wisdom to help me avoid being a jerk.


But thanks to all of you for the kind comments...it gives me the energy to keep going.

Cz and belial...


That is AS16-107-17446

...without attempting to stir up and old silly HB point...tis is the famous C Rock picture, and you'll note that there is no C on that rock to the left of the gnomon.

Thanks MID

here's the link to the hi-res image for anyone else interested:

AS16-107-17446



As to "double wheel tracks" if you look closely, you can see that the track for the outside wheels (right side wheels) is significantly wider than what is normally seen. It is also visible to a lesser extent in the tracks for the left wheels. When vehicles use 4-wheel steering to the extent that the LRV did, the tracks from the front and rear wheels tend to fall in the same (or relatively close) place.

As can be seen from the terrain on the right side of the pic, there's a rock that the LRV was driven over, and right after, the LRv makes an almost 90 degree left turn.

In the following picture, I have take the original low-res version of AS16-107-17446, reduced it to 75% (just to save file size) and added in red lines to indicate the LRV tracks. The dashed parts of the lines indicate where the tracks should be, but due to either being disturbed by the astronauts footprints, dust "spray" from walking or rocks, the tracks are not visible. Details of the tracks can be seen much better in the hi-res version of the picture.



You can see at the apex of the turn (indicated by the blue arrows) that the tracks are significantly wider than when the tracks are straight.

In my interpretation (not saying its absolutely correct, but given all the available data, it is, to me, the most likely scenario) as the LRV was driven to the area, it was driven over a rock, then stopped or slowed, the wheels turned hard left, then moved forward through the turn to where we see it in the picture.



Cz

belial,


Just some info for you here...

Specifically, the "wall-to-wall" turning radius of the LRV was 122". Let's say 10 feet to make it simple (it's actually 10.17 feet, but that's inconsequentiual). This implies a 20 foot circle measured from the outside dimension of the LRV (wall-to-wall).

The LRV was, edge to edge (inside of the inner wheels to outside of the outer wheels), 6' 9" wide. This means that it's inside turning radius was a mere 3.5 feet, if it described a 10 foot radius to the outside edge.

That means that the inside wheels of the LRV would only have a linear distance of a little more than 4 1/2 feet between them upon executing a 90 degree, undisturbed turn. It's a very tight inner circle which a man could just about stretch across were he to lay down inside of it.

In the photo in question, if you examine it closely, you will note that the right wheels drove over the relatively substantial rock on the right hand side of the picture during the turn.

The result of this, with the wheels turning, is that that right rear wheel spooled up a bit during it's "airborne" travel, and plopped down on the ground, the result of that being a little more wheel speed being on the right wheel than the left (which would've hardly been turning in a full left turn anyway), which caused the vehicle to get "loose" for a moment on the right rear...and that causes the turning angle to be momentarily increased as the right rear wheel plunks down, suddenly grabbing the ground and pushing. In other words, you get a wee skidding effect out to the right, which increases the turn angle...the left wheels being turned and not rotating much at all.

The LRV actually spent alot of time partially off the ground on one side or another during traverses...because of the hummocky surface and the occassional rock in it's path...

I'm not sure if this makes a whole lot of sense or not.

A neat experiment would be to take a go-cart...if you could find one, and try tight turns while driving over some obstacle with your right wheels and observe the tendency you have to tail out with your rear end while doing so...(the LRV, however, had this really cool electric steering system with 4 wheels, which intensified such an effect...but the go cart could simulate it enough to make it apparent).

Just a couple thoughts

You're welcome, Cz...and I think you've hit it on the head!

M~

you are right to say its not absolutely correct , because in this case it is certainly totally wrong , you forgot the perspective , as you can see in your drawings , the tracks you drawed didn't match any perspective at all , and look your bottom left endline drawing line (red) the rock just under , you think the rover would have passe above it ? why in the world wouldn't they have avoided that ? the fact is , nobody will drive above this rock , and nobody wouldn't gently avoid the rock in the right-side track you drawed , so the track you drawed are not realistic , and those seen on the pictures are very suspicious , and look more like quick done overlay , picture manipulation.

And your expert reasoning for that would be...?


Considering that the lines I drew on the picture follow the tracks that are IN the picture, I'd say that they follow the picture's perspective fairly accurately


And of course it's totally unreasonable to think that perhaps that rock was moved by the astronauts AFTER the LRV drove through that area, or that the 14 inches of ground clearance that the LRV has when loaded (17 inches unloaded) might have been enough to clear that rock? Can you provide details on just how big that rock is? How tall it is?


Maybe you'd care to point out to me where I said they "carefully avoided" the rock on the right side?

How about I reiterate what I actually said:

Maybe you'd like to explain how "driven over" in your mind equates to "carefully avoided"...?


I never claimed to be nor am I a fantastic artist. But the lines I drew do match well enough with the LRV tracks as shown in the picture to emphasize where they are in the picture and the course that they follow.

And of course, you DID look at the hi-res image (which I provided a link for) when I said that


... didn't you?


Hardly surprising since you still believe that 20 seconds of shoddy video shows Apollo to be a hoax


Again... since it seems that you didn't bother to fully read what I wrote, let me reiterate what I actually said:



Hey... finally you got something right!... Then again, I did admit and document what changes I had made to the picture.

Once again, LLL, your misconceptions and uneducated opinions have failed to support your hoax claims and do not negate the fact that the picture I provided show the tracks of the LRV and provide a sufficiently probable explanation as to how they got there.


Cz

i didn't say your drawing where looking like quick done overlay , i was talking about the prints ... , i know your drawing WAS a quick done overlay , and since you followed the tracks you can clearly see they don't exhibit accurate perspective , so you know your drawing , don't show realistic patch of that vehicle , that's why i said , good point that you also said that you didn't think it was perfectly correct , because it was obviously totally wrong , and i did see the higher version yes , the tracks are in differents places in the higher version ? i don't think so , so the conclusion is the same even if you had drawn into the bigger version , following the exact 'method' you use for the first one you would have made the same mistake in conslusion , because these tracks are not , and will never be , the track of that vehicle , in that particular picture , since they are completly off in a perspective point of view , and in a logical point of view also (because to not avoid this rock it have to be on purpose , and i don't think they would have done that on purpose just for the sake of it , if they really where on serious extremly critical man on the moon missions).

Perspective is indeed important here, but there's nothing wrong with Czero's diagram (nice work, by the way ). This photo was not taken on level terrain, and that's distorting the perspective here. The LRV is parked at Geology Station 4 on the side of Stone Mountain. They're on the side of a hill here, as can be seen in this photo:

AS16-107-17472 (see also AS16-107-17473)


In fact, according to the mission transcript (see below) John Young intentionally drove the rover into a small crater which provided a more level parking spot than the side of the mountain:

AS16-107-17472HR cropped



Here's AS16-107-17446 again, but I've labeled a few of the larger rocks near the rover tracks. Note that John Young is taking this picture at a point uphill from the rover looking down into the small crater in which the rover was parked. The ground here changes slope from a downhill slant near the camera to fairly level at the rover.



A bit later in the EVA, Charlie Duke shot a series of photos which show the rover from a different perspective. I've combined two of the photos from this pan, AS16-110-17960 and AS16-110-17962:




Here's an enlargement from those combined photos showing the area behind the rover. I've labeled the same rocks I marked in photo 17446 above. As you can see, the actual turning radius of the rover is not nearly so tight as it appears in AS16-107-17446:

AS16-110-17960 + AS16-110-17962 (cropped)






You're again stating some pretty strong opinions here without any evidence to back them up. Have you ever driven an LRV? If not, why do you believe you're a better judge of it's capabilities than John Young and Charlie Duke, who trained extensively on Earth and actually drove the vehicle on the lunar surface?

The mission transcript clearly states that they did indeed drive over some rocks as John Young was parking the rover at Station 4:

Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, Apollo 16 EVA-2, Traverse to Station 4 (my bolding)

QUOTE (Apollo Lunar Surface Journal)

[Duke - "(Looking at the picture) Looks like we've just driven up the thing and just turned around. I remember that, up on the side of Stone Mountain. We came up and made a turn - really impressive - and then started back down a little bit. We were trying to find a bench that we could work on. And then we ended up pointing the Rover almost like northwest."]

144:05:55 Duke: We can see the old lunar module! Look at that, John. Okay, 270 on the (Rover) heading.

144:06:04 Young: Okay, Charlie. I want to go back down there and park in that crater right there.

144:06:08 Duke: Okay. Okay.

144:06:11 Young: See what I'm saying?

144:06:13 Duke: Yeah, okay. Looks like to me, from my side, if you just turn real sharp left, you'd have it. But that's fine with me.

144:06:19 Young: It's not flat, Charlie. It's pointing too downhill.

144:06:22 Duke: Not sideways, it wouldn't be.

144:06:23 Young: Huh?

144:06:24 Duke: Sideways. We got to park 270. (Pause) But that'd be fine. Why don't you go down there, John? You probably...(Pause) Watch that big rock! Ummm. Just cleared it. Which one are you going to park in?

144:06:52 Young: That one right down there, with that block in it.

144:06:54 Duke: The right?

144:06:55 Young: Yeah.

144:06:56 Duke: Okay. (Pause) That's a good overturnable one right there, John. Hey, we could roll that thing downhill. (Pause)

[The idea is to overturn and collect some of the soil that was underneath it. Presumably, that soil has been shielded from cosmic rays and the solar wind for as long as the rock has been in place and a comparison with nearby surface soil would yield information of soil/solar wind interactions.]
[At about this point, Charlie takes his last traverse photo, AS16-110-17946. Note the large number of blocks and the Rover tracks coming uphill. Charlie's pan taken at 144:56:25 shows the tracks John is making as he drives downhill to the place where he will park the Rover.]

144:07:26 Duke: Look at that beauty (meaning the Rover) climb over those l-meter blocks.

[Jones - Does this mean that John's getting the wheels up on..."]
[Duke - "Up on some of the blocks, yeah. If I remember, they were more subdued blocks, though. I mean, it wasn't a boulder sticking up a meter, but the width and breadth of the block was a meter. It wasn't any problem. That car just really moved over all that kind of surface. I think we were probably ten or twelve inches off the surface - that's how much clearance we had. Maybe a little bit more than that."]

[Jones - "14 inches is the number that sticks in my mind."]

[Duke - "Yeah, maybe. So the rock couldn't stick up more than 14 inches or we'd drag the bottom - like we did a couple of times."]

144:07:29 Duke: Okay. Just about got it. Just about...Great, great, super! Okay. We're parked, Tony, at heading 270, (bearing) 354, (distance driven) 5.2, (range) 4.1, 100, 100, (Pause), 70, 68, 68, (Pause), 85, 100, off-scale...(correcting himself) about 200, 200, and 200, 200. And I'll give you the readings.

Nice bit of research on those Apollo 16 images Peri. As usual I find the data itself is a better place to look for answers to questions rather than playing the "I don't believe they would have done it that way" card.

and what was your point ? no distortion there , they are on the same ground , the vanishing point is just different , the track will not be totally distorted at all , you just have take the vanishing point of the inclined plan where they stand , and the tracks will follow , they don't , because these overlined tracks are not the track path of that vehicle , and the photo you added just showed another 1 track photo (not even see the second side tracks at all ) , so in both cases , exept putting 'good jobs dude' for your firends you have nothing more than a long post for nothing ?

-edit-

also he 'park' a good 30 seconds later , so he don't speak about that rock in your transcript .

I thought the point was quite clear: a change in vantage point of a photograph of the same scene radically changes the perspective. From the angle in AS16-110-17962, the path the tracks took don't look anywhere near as curved as they do in the c-rock photo. Clearly, the turning circle used is well within prescribed parameters (at least I hope that much is clear from this image!)

There was also a lot of background information explaining why they were parked where they were, and recollections from the astronauts themselves.

This thread has also seen other information about the technical specs of the LRV re turning circle among other things.

What exactly is your point? Do you have any data or research to back up any claims, other than I can't see why they would do it the way they did? Sorry to keep reminding you, but the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate why you believe this photo has problems, i.e. is faked.

the vanishing point of the 'hill' , not the eyelevel , so relative to this 'hill' vanishing point i don't see why the track would be distorted to any degree that will prevent anyone to see that these tracks clearly don't diverge as they should relative to perspective.

Ditto to Peri. Very nice analysis there, my friend!

LLL, did you read this post?




The fact that Peri has clearly pointed that the LRV was turning downhill, intensifies the effect I described to belial...


Just a thought for you to experiment with.

i did tough of it , too bad that the front wheel passing on that one will DECREASE the turning angle a lot , now let me guess , they where only running on the rear whell for that particular scene ?

-edit- and will certainly not leave a track just after the rock as we can clearly see it on the pictur , so this is now obvious for everyone i guess , that this photo as been altered ?

Well it's not obvious to me. In fact your analysis makes no sense at all. Why would NASA alter a picture so that it doesn't look correct? We have plenty of video that shows that the LRV was capable of being driven (whether on the Moon, in a studio, in the Mojave, in Area 51* or wherever). Why not simply drive it and photgraph the results? Sometimes HB explanations only make sense if you believe that NASA went out of it's way to make Apollo look fake, which would be rather silly wouldn't it?

*One day the HBs will finally make up their mind exactly where they think the footage was faked, until then the rest of us can continue to be amused by the way they constantly contradict each other.

that's why i asked if it was obvious for everyone , for me it is at least.

1) will the rover leave a sharp track just after 'bumping' on that rock ? i don't think so (1/6th inertia/momentum etc../
2) will this 'bump' with the right front wheel decrease the turning angle ? i think yes (brutal change in mass repartition 1/6thg momentum/etc.. , the right front wheel is the 'leading' whell for that left turn (mass repartition)
3) is that turn very sharp ? yes (obvious for everyone right ?
4) is thos sharp turn logical ? for me no
5) are the track path convergence realistic , based on the overlined track made by Cz ? for me no

that's why this picture have been altered , and i just ask if it was obvious for everyone , for you it is not the case , no problem with me , i was just asking.

But now that we're on the photo analisys thingy , i have a good one for you (sorry in case it has already been 'debunked' in this case just copy/paste your 'flawless' debunking no problem ...)

start by looking at this picture from EVA-1 apollo 17 (flag salute photos) << time 118:23:20 :

:


look the shadows , you see these pretty long shadows , you see their overall directions ok ? , look the shadows of the rover , and look the far right wheel 'protector' thing , you will see a clear shadow in it , it is a CASTED shadow of the TV camera apparently , you see it ? and it's perfectly coherent with the overall direction of that 'low on horizon' sun , let's continue.

you can double check by these following pictures , of the same scene (flag salute).

(2) << time : 118:23:20 (+-)
(3) << time : 118:25:18
(4) << time : 118:25:18 (+-)

did you 'memorized' , the overall disposition of shadows ok ? saw that clear difinite shadow in the rover far right (on the frame , so front right i think) wheel 'protector' thing (orange-ish stuff) , you clearly see it , no problem from there ? you follow me ? are you ready ? ok enough stupid question i agree ... let's continue.

now look what happen at time : 118:31:52 EVA-1 (roughly 5 minutes after the flag-salute photoshoot ended)



you see what i see ? the shadows are completly OFF places , the sun has moved ! glory to the sun , let's all bow in admiration for the mysterious power (electrostatic charges surely !) that moved the sun .. , see how there is NO shadows under the rover , and NO casted shadows on the orange thingy covering the freont-right wheel , also the sun seems a little bit higher in the sky .

the casted shadow had misteriously disapeared , the sun as misteriously change position RADICALLY ! , i have of course an explanation for this unexplained mistery , but let me guess , my opinion will appear too biased ? ok i submit my optinion nonetheless

this photos is an OBVIOUS faked photos , and is one of the numerous clues , that proves how FAKED these apollo missions where , since not a single man ever crossed our protective magnetosphere to this very day , and it is not scheduled before at the very least .. 2015-2020 +- (if the current project are anything real of course..)

i have double checked with the transcript , and the rover is not displaced from 118:26:00 to 118:32+ so good luck with the "they displaced the rover that's all.." theory .

a little sample on the transcript on the ALSJ

118:31:52 Schmitt: That's all right, I just put a sample in it. It's in the bottom of the bag. It's about 8 by 5 centimeters by 3 centimeters. Slightly tabular.

[Jack goes to the Rover and, out of view of the TV, takes Gene's camera off and stows it under the CDR seat as per LMP-12. He then leaves again. While at the Rover, he may have taken AS17-134- 20389, which is a good picture of the front of the vehicle and the LCRU, the LCRU mirrors, the TV camera, the TCU, the big dustbrush, and some cup-type sample bags which, later, Jack will attach to his LRV sampler.]

118:32:03 Parker: Okay. We copy that. It's in the big bag.

118:32:07 Schmitt: Yes, sir.

[This is probably the rock that disappears sometime between now and the end of EVA-2. Jack makes brief references to the disappearance at 123:40:07 and 147:36:11.]

[Jack turns to the east so he can get some light on his camera to check either the settings or the frame count.]

118:32:14 Cernan: Okay, Bob. A Mark on gravity.


-edit- hilarous Cernan that missed 'his war' he wanted to bomb innocent vietnamese with his big planes instead of playing clownesque entertainment , he would have prefered to bomb vietnamese with napalm instead of this , can you believe this ? NO right ? well that's why you know these moon landing where fake , because no one in the world would prefer that to a moon landing , except pshycho-liars desperate dumbass of course , your choice. , 'missed HIS war' that's what you get when you MISS YOUR WAR , the best thing being to NOT START A WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE !

Deleted reply; I see the shadow you are referring to now.

ok [deleted reply]

No, the sun did not move. No the LRV did not move. But the Television Camera on the front of the LRV, IT MOVED.

Have a look at these cropped detail sections from the pictures indicated, which I have also labeled to indicate feature on the LRV:

(Except as noted in the 3rd picture, these images have not been altered or enhanced in any way. They are 640x480 detail sections of the full size, Hi-Res images.)

AS17-134-20379


AS17-134-20381


AS17-134-20382


Please notice that in all the above pictures, the Television Camera is pointing directly at the astronaut taking the picture.

Now, here's the other picture you posted earlier, rotated so that it lines up better with the other pictures, resized, and also with LRV features labeled:

AS17-134-20389


This image is taken from roughly the same orientation to the LRV (from the left side, facing forward and right) as the other 3 pictures posted above.

Please notice that the Television Camera has moved and is now pointing in a different direction - roughly towards the rear of the LRV, which would also cause its shadow to fall differently on the front right "fender".

How do I know for sure that it moved?

Here's a link to the video taken by the Television Camera during the time that the above picture (AS17-134-20382) was taken:

Real Clip Video (3min 41sec)

This video starts at approx 181:31:01, which is approximately 50 seconds before the indicated time of AS17-134-20382.

Also, the shadow on the "fender" in the first 3 pictures looks darker due to the exposure settings of the camera (no, I don't know what those settings were, but I have been a photographer for many years and understand how slight differences in exposure effect how a picture looks, especially with regards to details in the distant background) and due to the distance to the LRV, there is less detail shown. When the 4th picture was taken, the exposure enables more detail to be shown clearer, and also, there's an astronaut in a reflective, white EVA suit standing very close to the objects in the picture. Sunlight is reflecting off the EVA suit and "washing out" some of the shadow, not completely, but enough to make it appear lighter than other pictures taken at a greater distance.



I will ignore this blatant attack on the character of Gene Cernan, as it just serves to demonstrate your ignorance of the man and his character and adds nothing to the discussions in the thread.


Cz

sorry Cz , you probably didn't looked the pictures very well ,
if not you would have seen that the antenna also cast a shadown on that fender ... and also you would have noticed that IN NO WAY , the shadows would run parralel to the lenght of the rover top (as they do in the 'faulty' picture , just a little angle but roughly parralel) yet they are NOT parralel in all the pictures (see the links in my post take 5 seconds by picture you will see this quickly) , i didn't looked the video since i already know that your argument wasn't valid , try a better one.

-- edit --

Oh , and for the cernan rant , i agree i could have avoided it , but i did heard from is mouth , that 'he missed his war , "it was my war"' he said , and for me this kind of regret is just outrageous , if not i wouldn't have deared this kind of 'insult' at all.

-- edit --

after a closer look , the second shadown might be the shadow of the wire attached to the TV camera , so probably not the antena , but don't worrie , it just prove that the casted shadow is due mainly to the 'body' of the camera (that will not cause severe change in shadow when it rotate on is axis) and NOT the up of the camera , so your argument , even if i was maybe wrong about the antena , is not valid anyway.

Hi Czero,

I think I'm going to have to disagree with both you and the Lunar Surface Journal on this one. The LRV really HAS moved. I'm certain that AS17-134-20389 was not taken at the LM site, but rather at the ALSEP site at some point after the LRV arrived there at MET 119:07. The ALSJ is a bit unsure of the exact location for this photo, stating only that "While at the Rover, he may have taken AS17-134-20389" (my emphasis). I think they guessed wrong in this case. Here's my evidence:

AS17-134-20389HR Rotated and Cropped

The mountain just barely visible in shadow over the TV camera is the East Massif. The white box and flex tape visible just above the LRV fender is the ALSEP LACE (Lunar Atmospheric Composition Experiment). Both of these features can be seen clearly in other photos taken at the ALSEP site:

AS17-147-22583 -- ALSEP with East Massif in Background


AS17-147-22579 -- LACE Experiment at ALSEP Site (note small crater near LACE)



To put things in perspective, here's a panorma I assembled from photos AS17-147-22577 through 22584. Per the ALSJ, these photos were taken at some time around MET 120:40.



I think it's clear from the panorama that everything at the ALSEP site lines up. A person standing at the LRV looking toward the East Massif would see the LACE experiment in the foreground with a small crater just to it's left. The sun angles and shadows all match, too.

Note, too, that photo AS17-134-20390 (the next shot on the roll) wasn't taken until MET 121:56:26, after the crew had left the ALSEP site.



On this point, Czero, you and I are in complete agreement.


Edited to add comment about photo 20390 timing.

Thank you, Postie, and you too, MID. It's just a small addition to the page after page of excellent data & analysis already posted by you and other members here.

Alright. Yes you are correct, the shadow from the antenna does fall in a different direction than the rest of the pictures. I did have a closer look at the images, and yes, I did not originally take that into account.

This brings up something else of interest, though. Note these two pictures:





Note the blue circles and arrows pointing to the antenna mast.

Note that in the first image, the dustbrush attached to the antenna mast does not appear the same as it is in the second image. In the first image it is barely even visible, and although according to the ALSJ ground transcripts it was attached at approximately 118:03:00, it is almost not visible. In the second image, it is clearly at an angle that would have been visible in the first image.

Please also note that the dustbrush in the second image also has the appearance of having been used.

I think what we have here is a mis-labeled picture in the ALSJ

Please note the following quote from the Apollo 17 Image Library (URL: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html#20389)


Please also refer back to the portion of the ALSJ you quoted earlier regarding the timing of AS17-134-20389:


Perhaps this might be a good time for you to watch that video I linked earlier. While it does not, in the end, serve the purpose I originally intended (well, actually it does in the sense that I intended it to show that the camera moved) it does show what the astronauts were doing at the time the ALSJ estimates that Jack Schmitt took that picture.

Here's the link to that video again:
Real Clip Video (3min 41sec)

There are other video files listed for that time frame here:

ALSJ - Apollo 17 Video Library
First EVA - Flag Deployment and ALSEP Off-Load

I have watched the 3 videos that lead up to and past the time which the ALSJ says AS17-134- 20389 may have been taken, and neither of the astronauts can be seen doing any work at the front of the LRV which is where they would have had to have been to use the dustbrush prior to what the ALSJ indicates.

Given all those factors, this leads me to the conclusion that AS17-134- 20389 was not taken at 118:31:52, but must have been taken before or during the first traverse and before AS17-134-20390 was taken at 121:56:26.

In conclusion, you assessment of AS17-134- 20389 is still incorrect in that the sun did not move, nor was the picture faked, but it was taken at a different time than is indicated in the ALSJ and at a different location from those images take prior to it, which explains the different angles of the shadows shown.


Cz

i must agree , this pictures look like a mislabeled one , saved by a losy box and a piece of something looking vaguely of a faked background mountain , but saved anyway , i will not fight a dead horse then , i gave you 'the point' , good night everyone , and be prepared for new discoveries of mislabeled pictures everywhere.

No worries, Pericynthion. Looks like we came to the same (or similar) conclusions and you beat me to the posting punch (see previous message).

I have no problem admitting when I am mistaken. I also have no problem admitting that I type slow sometimes, and in this case in particular, spent a lot of time reading through various parts of the ALSJ and watching a bout 1/2 hour's worth of AS17 EVA video.

It was worth it though


Cz


EDITED because I had Peri's name wrong