Help me get the distance

[dwight]

I'll have to look at the 15 video again and give you specific GET times. I will point out that I am addicted to a PS2 shoot 'em up at the moment, so I'll be some time getting back to you. Well, at least until I and my virtual buddies get the Nazis out of France.

[PhantomWolf]

Well just by looking at the image itself I'd guessimate that the mountain is in the range of 6-10 km away. I'd have to look up to see how far the station it was taken at actually is from the mountain though.

[PhantomWolf]

I find myself having to repeat this again, because it's quite important. It is almost impossible to judge distnces on the moon from the photos, it was hard enough for the crews to do while they were there. They were constantly misjudging how far away things where, always assuming that things were closer than they really were. Buzz and Neil thought they could walk to a "nearby" boulder field but gave up when they'd walked about 500 metres and it wasn't any closer (it was estimted later that it ws 1-2km away.) The crew of 14 gave up while trying to get to the rim of a crater they were exploring because each time they thought they were at the top, they found another ridge that was even higher. Perhaps the most famous examples are from Apollo 16, one of which was the walk to House Rock. It took so long, due to the failure to judge the distance, that Houston was making jokes about the crew disappearing into the sunset.

From the Apollo 16 ALSJ

167:36:10 Young: Look at the size of that biggie (meaning House Rock)!

[Charlie crosses the TV field-of-view from right to left, headed for the Rover.]
167:36:11 Young: It is a biggie, isn't it. It may be further away than we think because...
167:36:17 Duke: No, it's not very far. It was just right beyond you (when he was sampling north of the Rover after 166:56:58).

167:36:19 Young: Theoretically, huh?

167:36:20 Duke: Yeah.

167:36:21 Young: Like everything else around here, a couple of weeks later (you still aren't there)...

[John is saying that things are always farther away than they seem and that trips take longer than he expects. Because there is no atmospheric haze to give an impression of distance, it is very difficult to judge the size and distance of distant objects. Fendell stops the pan to give the Backroom another look into North Ray while he waits for John and Charlie to leave the Rover.]
[House Rock can be seen at CZ.2/80.6 in the "Descartes EVA-III 3 of 3" map in the Lunar Surface Procedures volume. As indicated in Figure 6-65 in the Preliminary Science Report, House Rock is about 12 meters tall, 16 by 20 meters across, and is about 220 meters from the Rover. At 167:17:38, John only slightly underestimated the distance of House Rock from the Rover as being 150 meters.]

underlining mine

[lordoftherings]

I'll repeat my point for the last time: It is not judging the distance, but ability to see the ridge line that is not seen here." What you are saying is irrelevant.

[PhantomWolf]

I was answering your first question, which was how far away is the mountain. So it's not irrelevant. As to the rest of your comments, I suspect you have linked to the wrong image as the one you have linked to is from Station 5 and is nowhere near the LM. There are however two lines that would seem to me to be the top of a slope that would then hide any dip behind it in the image you have actually linked too. One seems to form a small valley like depression to the right side of the photo about as far beyond the rover tracks as the photographer is in front of them. The second is slightly beyond the rise on the other side of that valley, but goes right across the image. Both have a slight change in the texture of the ground, which would certainly indicate a sudden transition from ground that is nearer the camera to ground that is much further away, however without a stereo image it's hard to tell exactly from this image.

[lordoftherings]

phantomwolf said:

I was answering your first question, which was how far away is the mountain. So it's not irrelevant. .

The distance of mountain is related to the land obscured supposedly by a ridgeline.

.

As to the rest of your comments, I suspect you have linked to the wrong image as the one you have linked to is from Station 5 and is nowhere near the LM. .

Irrelevant. I am not even mensioning the LM. What i amsaying is that according to you, the distance from the photographer to the mountain is 8-10Kms. This doesn't seem so.

.

There are however two lines that would seem to me to be the top of a slope that would then hide any dip behind it in the image you have actually linked too. One seems to form a small valley like depression to the right side of the photo about as far beyond the rover tracks as the photographer is in front of them. The second is slightly beyond the rise on the other side of that valley, but goes right across the image. Both have a slight change in the texture of the ground, which would certainly indicate a sudden transition from ground that is nearer the camera to ground that is much further away, however without a stereo image it's hard to tell exactly from this image.

There is NO ridgeline. I don't know if anybody can see it. Just view the high resolution image. The change of the texture is not a proof of distance. If they played with the colors of a mountain, it will seem to have different texture.

[lordoftherings]

I can see the little lines you refer to, I meant Ican't see real ridge lines. At the botttom of the second hill to the right that is attached to the mountain, there is also a line, where the mountain meets the ground. Shall we say this is a ridgeline that is hiding lots of land? Of course no. The effect you are speaking about can be seen everywhere. It is not a ridgeline that goes all along the way.

[scooter]

There's a ridgeline in front of the mountain. Where does NASA give this information...is the ridgeline between this photo spot and the mountain? The LM and the mountain?
Trying to determine distances on the Moon was a huge challenge for the astronauts, they always underestimated distances, this began with A11...

Dave

[lordoftherings]

scooter said:

There's a ridgeline in front of the mountain. Where does NASA give this information...is the ridgeline between this photo spot and the mountain? The LM and the mountain?

NASA doesn't say this but claims a great distance between the photographet and the mountain. Either there is a ridgeline that is hiding the land, which doesn't seem so, or the example that sts60 of Mount Denali where the distances are misestimated because of the featurelessness of the land is true. However, if we are on the moon, there is no air and things should seem clear. Even the land that is rocky and has craters (not like snow) has to be vivid. You should see a big mountain and a vast amount of land, which is not the case.

Trying to determine distances on the Moon was a huge challenge for the astronauts, they always underestimated distances, this began with A11...

Dave

What is the proof that this is what really happened and not a mock up job to make the photos believable. Do you ever watch movies?

[nomuse]

Air creates features -- that is, a large part of the sense of depth relies on the cues of atmospheric hazing. Distant objects tend to look pale, washed out, and slightly blue (depending on atmospheric conditions). It makes it easier to judge their relative distance.

Also, of course, most vistas on Earth have clues in the form of man-made structures, or trees (which have similar sizes), so we can also double-check our perception of distance there.

In re the ridge problem, the place you'll most often see the like on Earth is on a paved road; it is quite easy to have a near-invisible dip or gulley in the road in front of you, hidden in the same-texture material. However, I have experienced this problem in deep snow and in sand dunes -- and even in a proper desert, where you would think scrub and rock would give it away.

Might I suggest you leave the computer for a bit and do some hiking? All of these effects that seem to surprise you so much are part of the ordinary world. They are not even hard to find.

[lordoftherings]

nomuse said:

Air creates features -- that is, a large part of the sense of depth relies on the cues of atmospheric hazing. Distant objects tend to look pale, washed out, and slightly blue (depending on atmospheric conditions). It makes it easier to judge their relative distance.

Also, of course, most vistas on Earth have clues in the form of man-made structures, or trees (which have similar sizes), so we can also double-check our perception of distance there..

No air means vividness, of land and of everything. Regardless of the featurelessness of land, if I CAN SEE THE TINIEST CRATER ON THAT MOUNTAIN, I SHOULD SEE THE CLOSEST "FEATURE" (ROCKS AND CRATERS) on the land, there is no haze to block them.

.

In re the ridge problem, the place you'll most often see the like on Earth is on a paved road; it is quite easy to have a near-invisible dip or gulley in the road in front of you, hidden in the same-texture material. However, I have experienced this problem in deep snow and in sand dunes -- and even in a proper desert, where you would think scrub and rock would give it away..

The two textures are so similar bcz it is just a small dip. This reinforces my point. If the ridgeline, if it is present, is hiding a vast amount of land, then the next texture should be different, which is not the case.

.

Might I suggest you leave the computer for a bit and do some hiking? All of these effects that seem to surprise you so much are part of the ordinary world. They are not even hard to find.

Ah, don't remind me of my hiking trip. I went for training for one time with Greenpeace and you can't imagine the fear I encountered. I am really a coward when it comes to heights.
Anyhow, the far away textures should change, we are talking about kilometers
The texture of the bottom of the mountain changes only at its feet.

[Al Johnston]

lordoftherings said:

The two textures are so similar bcz it is just a small dip.

And you can tell it is a small dip by...?

[lordoftherings]

[qoute] In re the ridge problem, the place you'll most often see the like on Earth is on a paved road; it is quite easy to have a near-invisible dip or gulley in the road in front of you, hidden in the same-texture material.[/quote]

By this. It is a dip on the road, infront of me between the paved road.

[nomuse]

Yup. Moon again. It's all grey (okay, actually, there's a fair amount of color there..subtle color).

Not like Earth, where we have textures and patterns on all surfaces. Vertical surfaces look different than horizontal (grass grows very badly on cliff sides). Vegetation changes with elevation. Vegetation changes with distance from water. It is the NORM on Earth to have different materials and textures on the horizon, the middle ground, and the foreground. That is why I specifically mentioned sand dunes and deep snow (also add ocean). These are materials and conditions where there are not obvious clues to a discontinuity in the surface.

Where'd Greenpeace take you? Having done most of my hiking around California I think I'm gonna have to envy you.

[lordoftherings]

nomuse said:

Yup. Moon again. It's all grey (okay, actually, there's a fair amount of color there..subtle color).

Not like Earth, where we have textures and patterns on all surfaces. Vertical surfaces look different than horizontal (grass grows very badly on cliff sides). Vegetation changes with elevation. Vegetation changes with distance from water. It is the NORM on Earth to have different materials and textures on the horizon, the middle ground, and the foreground. That is why I specifically mentioned sand dunes and deep snow (also add ocean). These are materials and conditions where there are not obvious clues to a discontinuity in the surface.

Where'd Greenpeace take you? Having done most of my hiking around California I think I'm gonna have to envy you.

To Fakra in Lebanon. www.lubnan-alkawi.com/welctolb/Pages/68.htm . under these heights. this photo doesn't show the actual height.Everything was green cauz we went in Spring. The trainer said I performed the best climb up, applying all the rules. However, I was all the time calling God for help and quivering, they were up laughing at me.