Apollo 16 Lunar Rover footage

HD (720p) transfer from the 16mm film, stabilized in Youtube (back when they had this feature, which is now sadly gone).

www.youtube.com...


You can see the Lunar Module in the background. You can also tell this is in vacuum of space, as the lunar dust kicked up by the wheels falls straight back down in an arc.

originally posted by: wildespace
You can also tell this is in vacuum of space, as the lunar dust kicked up by the wheels falls straight back down in an arc.

It is not in the vaccum of space. The surface of the Moon has gravity or that dust would never fall gack to the surface at all.

Here's the real rover btw:

Those studio warehouses are huge and climate controlled.

a reply to: wildespace

I should have expected trolling, lol.

originally posted by: nerbot
It is not in the vaccum of space. The surface of the Moon has gravity or that dust would never fall gack to the surface at all.

You know that vacuum and gravity are different things right?

Why no stars, when they are visible from the orbiting lander.

www.nasa.gov...

a reply to: olaru12

Visible and photographable are different things.

Venus was captured from the surface by Apollo's 14 and 16, but reflected light and the bright sun means you can't photograph stars from there (apart from through the UV telescope they took). They did photograph stars from lunar orbit but required the right films and photographic conditions to do it.

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: wildespace

I should have expected trolling, lol.

I think they were just speaking not trolling.

"The lunar surface is a nearly pure vacuum: they said on Mars for years that there was not enough atmosphere for it to be possible for water to be on the surface nor ice, All changed now.

The moon was supposed to have a thin atmosphere now it is a complete vacuumed but still water in the soil and at the poles.

I feel these pictures look faker than the originals.

originally posted by: nerbot

originally posted by: wildespace
You can also tell this is in vacuum of space, as the lunar dust kicked up by the wheels falls straight back down in an arc.

It is not in the vaccum of space. The surface of the Moon has gravity or that dust would never fall gack to the surface at all.

Here's the real rover btw:

The Moon's surface gravity is about 1/6th as powerful as the earth

I would think the sand would fly higher than in these films it looks just like on earth if slowed down.
Actually looking at dune buggy pictures it flies higher on earth.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Most of the sand and dust thrown up by buggies on Earth dissipates over a larger area and stays suspended for longer thanks to the atmosphere, and is generated by much bigger wheels powered by much bigger engines.

The rover had a maximum speed of about 8 mph and wire mesh tyres.

The rooster tails you see in the LRV videos are entirely consistent with their being no atmosphere, and travel in exactly the right kind of trajectory.

www.popsci.com...

Lol well that was a good laugh.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

LRV videos are entirely consistent with their being no atmosphere

Really? How odd.

Until recently, most everyone accepted the conventional wisdom that the moon has virtually no atmosphere. Just as the discovery of water on the moon transformed our textbook knowledge of Earth's nearest celestial neighbor, recent studies confirm that our moon does indeed have an atmosphere consisting of some unusual gases, including sodium and potassium, which are not found in the atmospheres of Earth, Mars or Venus

www.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: Bella1
Lol well that was a good laugh.

I find this hilarious!

How did the astronauts stay on the moon without gravity?
Astronauts trained for microgravity by walking “sideways.”

Armstrong practiced taking off and landing in the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle in Houston. And, to simulate walking in the moon's lower-gravity atmosphere, astronauts were suspended sideways by straps and then walked along a tilted wall.Jul 17, 2020

In fact, if you could stand on the surface of the Moon, you would experience only 17% the force of gravity that you would experience on Earth.

Hum what would happen if earth had only 17% of our gravity,,,what do you think!

a reply to: SeaWorthy

The atmosphere is tenuous at best. The article you link to says that the equivalent molecular density on Earth would be considered a vacuum. It is, to all intents and purposes, absent.

a reply to: SeaWorthy You seriously don't think this is real?

originally posted by: olaru12
Why no stars, when they are visible from the orbiting lander.

www.nasa.gov...

The lunar surface and the rover are in direct sunlight, so the camera's exposure was set to that.
Here on earth, if you were out on a sunny day and the atmosphere was removed to show space, you wouldn't be able to see stars either.

a reply to: wildespace

And what film were they using?

a reply to: Bella1

16mm Ektachrome.

Thanks,

There was no film used at that time that could withstand temperatures of boiling 250 degrees Fahrenheit and -208 degrees Fahrenheit least of all Kodak Ektachrome. Before we even start with the camera metals and the radiation.



a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

a reply to: Bella1

And your evidence for any of this is...?

Bearing in mind that film was used in space environments for a number of years before it was employed on the lunar surface, including in space craft in orbit around the moon for considerably longer than Apollo missions.

The temperatures you quote are the theoretical minimum/maximum over an entire lunar day.