|
Post by grashtel on Jul 28, 2010 11:53:08 GMT -4
I'm not sure they would do much better, those Hasselblads took good pictures. A more spectacular question is going back to Hadley with modern climbing gear.IIRC the Apollo photos were equivalent to something like 32 megapixels, which is only just being matched by even very high end digital cameras (which I am uncertain if would have enough radiation tolerance to be chosen to be taken on a trip to the Moon).
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 28, 2010 15:01:54 GMT -4
I'm not sure they would do much better, those Hasselblads took good pictures. A more spectacular question is going back to Hadley with modern climbing gear.Well...maybe. A digital HDTV camera would certainly be a marked improvement over the analog sequential color camera on the rover. And yeah, some safe way to descend into the Rille would be really neat. I have stared at pictures of the Rille trying to get a sense of scale, but it's nearly impossible. Seeing the astronauts as small dots at the bottom from a camera on the rim would help drive that scale home. My other favorite Apollo pictures include the long shots from Apollo 17 showing the LM sitting on the plain a long distance away. Made me appreciate just how much confidence they had developed in their EMUs (suits & PLSS & OPS). I know they had the buddy hose to share cooling water. And I think Gene Cernan pointed out that the guy with the failed PLSS would have two OPS if necessary, not just one, but still...the thought of racing back to the LM over that distance is the stuff of nightmares.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jul 28, 2010 15:55:27 GMT -4
Well...maybe. A digital HDTV camera would certainly be a marked improvement over the analog sequential color camera on the rover. Well, yes, though generally when people refer to "digital camera" without qualification, they mean a still camera. Though have you seen the films taken with the 16mm DAC movie camera? They are quite spectacular. Buzz put it very well when he referred to it as "Magnificent desolation." Oh, there would be a lot of work making sure it could be done safely, for example anchoring points. One problem they had with setting up the flag was that it was very difficult to hammer it in, but would slip sideways easily. You do NOT want this to happen with your anchoring points. And that is just for starters. But yes, it would be an amazing experience and help allow otherwise unreachable areas to be explored in detail.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 28, 2010 16:57:27 GMT -4
I'm not sure they would do much better, those Hasselblads took good pictures. A more spectacular question is going back to Hadley with modern climbing gear.IIRC the Apollo photos were equivalent to something like 32 megapixels, which is only just being matched by even very high end digital cameras (which I am uncertain if would have enough radiation tolerance to be chosen to be taken on a trip to the Moon). There was an article this month in Wired about a Daguerreotype panorama taken in 1848 - its resolution was equivalent to -I did you not - 140,000 mp. This was just twenty years after photography was invented!
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jul 28, 2010 20:16:12 GMT -4
IIRC the Apollo photos were equivalent to something like 32 megapixels, which is only just being matched by even very high end digital cameras (which I am uncertain if would have enough radiation tolerance to be chosen to be taken on a trip to the Moon). There was an article this month in Wired about a Daguerreotype panorama taken in 1848 - its resolution was equivalent to -I did you not - 140,000 mp. This was just twenty years after photography was invented! You mean this? You're right, that is pretty spectacular, to put it mildly.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 28, 2010 21:41:51 GMT -4
There was an article this month in Wired about a Daguerreotype panorama taken in 1848 - its resolution was equivalent to -I did you not - 140,000 mp. This was just twenty years after photography was invented! You mean this? You're right, that is pretty spectacular, to put it mildly. Yep, that's the picture - apparently you could blow it up to 170 X20 feet without any loss of resolution!
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 29, 2010 3:58:53 GMT -4
Well, yes, though generally when people refer to "digital camera" without qualification, they mean a still camera. Though have you seen the films taken with the 16mm DAC movie camera? They are quite spectacular. I had both in mind. At the risk of reopening the film-vs-digital debate, my personal take is that film is often overrated. It's not just a matter of resolution; film has other artifacts (surface defects, grain, etc) that digital sensors generally don't have. It's also easy to forget one of digital's big practical advantages: the ability of the photographer to check the results right after taking the picture, while there's still an opportunity to reshoot if necessary. But the real advantage of going back to the moon with digital still cameras would be that with the right linkup WE could see those still pictures in near real time. As stunning as much of the Apollo 70mm photography is, until only a few years ago I'd only seen a small sampling, and that only after generations of duping and printing. Only when the new digital scans started to appear, 30+ years after the fact, did I get to see most of those pictures, and close to their original quality.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 29, 2010 7:59:12 GMT -4
I suppose you could have the lo res beam back for immediate look see and store the full res on whatever media on the moon and bring it back or beam back up of the hi res stuff during rest periods.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 29, 2010 17:25:10 GMT -4
I suppose you could have the lo res beam back for immediate look see and store the full res on whatever media on the moon and bring it back or beam back up of the hi res stuff during rest periods. Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. The Apollo Unified S-Band System was an analog system, with separate subcarriers (channels) for voice, telemetry, etc. Today's version would be a single high speed digital link carrying an Internet Protocol packet stream. Priorities would be assigned to each application so that link bandwidth would never go to waste if there's something waiting to be sent.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 30, 2010 10:36:46 GMT -4
...At the risk of reopening the film-vs-digital debate, my personal take is that film is often overrated. It's not just a matter of resolution; film has other artifacts (surface defects, grain, etc) that digital sensors generally don't have. It's also easy to forget one of digital's big practical advantages: the ability of the photographer to check the results right after taking the picture, while there's still an opportunity to reshoot if necessary. But the real advantage of going back to the moon with digital still cameras would be that with the right linkup WE could see those still pictures in near real time. As stunning as much of the Apollo 70mm photography is, until only a few years ago I'd only seen a small sampling, and that only after generations of duping and printing. Only when the new digital scans started to appear, 30+ years after the fact, did I get to see most of those pictures, and close to their original quality. Several years ago I went to see Michael Light's "Full Moon" exhibition of digitally remastered Apollo (and some Gemini and Skylab) photos. I remember seeing photos which had been blown up so the astronauts appeared life size. Awesome stuff. Sadly, though, I didn't know as much about Apollo as I do now, so the exhibition didn't have quite the same impact that it would now. At least I have the coffee table book as a reminder. I'd love a chance to see that exhibition again.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 30, 2010 14:07:46 GMT -4
I'd love a chance to see that exhibition again. Well, check out the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal! It doesn't have every Apollo photo in high resolution, but it has many of them. And quite a few have been joined into panoramas. You will need a big display (and some 3D glasses) to get the most from them, but they will knock your socks off. I never really had an idea of what it must be like to stand on the moon before I saw these more recent digital scans. Stare at them for a while and you just might start to feel like you're there.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Nov 19, 2010 11:00:29 GMT -4
I have another question, so am using this old thread.......
It is to do with how much higher should somebody be able to jump on the Moon compared to Earth.
Is it 6x higher? Does anyone have the equation that proves or disproves it......this is one of the big deals made by hoax believers. It would be nice to have a definitive answer.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 19, 2010 11:28:09 GMT -4
I have another question, so am using this old thread....... It is to do with how much higher should somebody be able to jump on the Moon compared to Earth. Is it 6x higher? Does anyone have the equation that proves or disproves it......this is one of the big deals made by hoax believers. It would be nice to have a definitive answer. Please have a look at the thread "HB Contradictions" reply # 431 and reply #435Edited to sophisticate links :-)
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Nov 19, 2010 12:29:38 GMT -4
Having done a lot of hill walking in me yoof and carried some absurd weights being young and stupid I think I had difficulty with around 150lbs after a short while and jumping was never going to happen. (memory is a bit vague but sure 150 odd was the figure).
Usual caveat for health n safety. This is testable but I take no responsibility for injuries....
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 19, 2010 12:39:29 GMT -4
I have another question, so am using this old thread....... It is to do with how much higher should somebody be able to jump on the Moon compared to Earth. Is it 6x higher? Does anyone have the equation that proves or disproves it......this is one of the big deals made by hoax believers. It would be nice to have a definitive answer. A short answer is that there is no reasonable comparison between how high a person can jump on the earth and should have jumped the moon. Gravity is not the only factor. Safety takes precedence in the lunar environment. If I am wearing a backpack on earth, I am much more careful about jumping or any other rapid motion because the weight distribution moves my center of mass an unfamiliar place. Add to that the low gravity, low traction and deadly environment on the moon and safety is paramount.
|
|