LRV on the Moon - Apollo 16 - HD Video Stabilized

[aldak1la]

@tomo7T1 the moon is 1/6th of Earth's mass & so has equivalent of 1/6th earth gravity... so the dust has some mass & thus weight & so will fall back to surface - it's relatively small your eyes/brain don't discern the difference - Zero Gravity would mean nothing has mass & there no "real" weight & everything would float away & moon would be almost dustless

- yada-yada :-D

[tomo7T1]

@aldak1la Cheers pal !! i`ll sleep better now .. ;-)

[dutchfett]

Figure...when its daytime on earth, you can't see the stars. This footage was filmed on the bright side, you can tell by the light...so no stars.

[LifeIsJustARide85]

Where are all the stars in the sky ?

[britoca]

@LifeIsJustARide85 they're in the sky

[LifeIsJustARide85]

@britoca In real life they are. In the movies - not so much - why? because if you can see the stars, you can tell time, year and many other things, much easier just to not show them at all.

[britoca]

@LifeIsJustARide85 where are the stars during daytime on earth?

[LifeIsJustARide85]

@britoca during daytime on earth the stars are hidden by our atmosphere, the moon has no atmosphere at all.

[britoca]

@LifeIsJustARide85 so let's pretend that Earth has no atmosphere, you take a daytime picture on the surface of Earth, a picture which includes both the surface of Earth and the sky, a picture with aperture and exposure time calibrated for action and motion shots, like a buggy driving around. Would you see stars in that picture?

[LifeIsJustARide85]

@britoca I don't know. Please, inlighten me.

[KRRands]

@britoca Its called white balance. If you focus the camera on the bright lunar surface, yes, it will wash out the stars. But if you simply raise the camera a little, the stars will appear. Yet shockingly, no matter how the video camera was angled, the stars never appeared.

[KRRands]

Also, why is the horizon always only about 20 meters away? Surely the curvature of the moon isn't that extreme? Where are the vast plains you'd see on a flat surface? Where are the distant mountains? Gosh, there are none. Apparently if you walk 20 meters on the moon, you disappear !

[britoca]

@KRRands they're actually many miles away. There is nothing in the image to scale the feature against, so the images look flat, and the distances aren't evident. However, if you take a look at some of the stereo pair photographs and lok at them in them in 3D, you can see just how big those mountains are, and just how far they and the horizon is: very big and very far.

[britoca]

@KRRands the stars will appear if the white balance is adjusted. These were manual cameras, that could not be adjusted in a fraction of a second. The camera was calibrated to film the buggy being driven on the surface. Looks right to me.

[zambi007i]

@KRRands even if they had raised the cam set with the exposure for lunar surface, they wouldn't have gotten any stars on the film. reason? the exposure value - set for bright white objects. it's obvius why the background always appears black.

if there was another cam set for longer exposure values, and they pointed it statically to the sky for a minute or more, they would definitely have captured stars. however, the lunar missions weren't planned to capture stars. (contd)

[zambi007i]

@KRRands even if they had fotograf'd the sky from the moon, the geo-lune distance of about 400,000 km isn't enough to cause any shift in the position of galactic objects hundreds of light-years away! 400,000 km is peanuts compared to even one light year!

[gilgtc]

@LifeIsJustARide85 hmm are you saying that during the night there is no atmosphere on earth?

[AmFilms123]

Wow. The stabilized footage looks so cool, as if a tripod/dolly was taken up there. Lol. Moon landing was such a triumph of humanity. Great job Nasa.

[ChingChongCification]

SO THIS WHOLE PANORAMIC VIEW OF THE MOON IS FAKE, RIGHT? SHOT IN STANLEY KUBRICK'S STUDIO, AY? JUST LIKE ALL THE AERIAL VIEWS OF THE MOON FROM A THOUSAND FEET ARE FAKE TOO, RIGHT? BTW, NASA JUST RELEASE SOME SATELLITE PICTURES OF THESE LANDING SITES WITH THE TRACKS AND ARTIFACTS. BUT I BET YOU ALL THINK THAT'S FAKE TOO, RIGHT? DON'T CONFLATE 9/11 TRUTH WITH FAKE MOON LANDING CRAP.

[qoaa]

unfortunately on Apollo 18 the rocks came to life and killed the astronaughts.

:(

[aigg]

Thank you so much for this! Seeing the moon footage in this quality, sort of brings it alot closer. With the old transfers you kind of had to use your imagination a little bit more. Great stabilizing!

[tab1976]

Wow! Great job, i've always wondered how the moon's surface would look through the eyes of an astronuaut instead of the grainy film we always see, everything would appear stark and ultra clear like this vid.

[Gregster138]

Excellent job deshaking. I've used deshaker before. I've seen this film dozens of times but it's like seeing it for the first time. Well done!

[Daddyo930]

They never went anywhere past low earth orbit. The solar constant. 1.95 langleys Ly per minute. one langley is 41840.00 J/m². 41840 joules per meter squares or 41840 joules per kilogram = 4184000 rads. Do the conversion yourself. It checks out. That much radiation is a suicide mission. We can't go to the moon now for the exact same reason we didn't go then. Radiation.

[britoca]

@Daddyo930 cool man, thanks for your opinion

[Daddyo930]

@britoca Your welcome. It's not my opinion. These are science facts. Easily verifiable. Visit NASA's website or Wikipedia.

[aldak1la]

@Daddyo930 Ah Wikipedia the world renowned font of all (irrefutable & accurate) knowledge ... Wikipedia is your "go-to guy"? Your "be all & end all"? Your "Final Answer"? ...Really? - No... Really?

[Daddyo930]

@aldak1la Didn't I also say NASA. Try every scientific university out there too. You have a specific fact that I posted you would like to take issue with?

[YDDES]

@Daddyo930 Try to change subject for a change. You have shown off Your ignorance about radiation long enough. It gets boring.

[lechimp89]

@Daddyo930 Yes, but due to the speed that the craft was traveling (25,000mph) the astronauts only recieved the equivilant of an x-ray in radiation

[Daddyo930]

@lechimp89 Do you know what the solar constant is? 1.95 langleys Ly per minute. one langley is 41840.00 J/m². 41840 joules per meter squares or 41840 joules per kilogram = 4184000 rads. Take .0001 percent of that and you get 4.18 rads per minute. 1 rad = 62.4 x 106 MeV's. Some apollogist say the apollo craft could attenuate alpha and beta radiation at 20 cm/g. to shield against 4 rads a minute, you would need about 80 cm/g at least and your not even halving the exposure.

[Tweekerhead]

@Daddyo930 The conversion is 1 RAD= 62.4x100^6 MeV per GRAM. You keep leaving that part out, and we let you for a week or two so you would spam this crap and make a fool of yourself, which you have ;-)

.

That means 1 gram of living tissue/matter would have to absorb 62,400,000 MeV to have 1 RAD.

Multiply that by a 75kg or 7,500 gram astronaut and what do you have Nimrod?

Don't you feel just a little embarrassed?

[sheepshitonastick]

@Tweekerhead oh now i understand?!? :/

[yyarross]

EV on the Moon... BEVs rocks :)

[GaryW48]

It is not fake. It was 16mm film shot by astronaut Charlie Duke of John Young testing out the moon rover on Apollo 16 for how fast it could go. The other view was from the passenger seat while driving on the moon.

[MrAlienUSA]

WHOAH!!!!! THE QUALITY IT'S REALLY FANTASTIC! AMAZING! Great Vidéo!!!

[Zythius]

Where did you get this film? I need the source, or it could be fake.

[britoca]

@Zythius check video info

[YubabaOfYourHeart]

I tried to raise the volume thinking "Isn't this a little too quiet?".

That's one small fail for man - One giant epic fail for me. xDD

[ryansmellsbad]

This, like so many other videos, are made even more awesome by playing Yakety Sax in the background.

[dandan121000]

aussom vido hd

[yasu3japan]

Reckless driving lol

[stevehislop]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawesome!!­!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!