Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

[Echnaton]

"My interpretation" is based on the physics, not some blind belief that they couldn't fake it.

Until you show your work, your interpretation is solely based on your personal belief as far as everyone else is concerned.  Quit pretending!  Show us your calculations and answer the questions such as how the Lunar Grand Prix was filmed.

[geo7863]

"My interpretation" is based on the physics, not some blind belief that they couldn't fake it.

Until you show your work, your interpretation is solely based on your personal belief as far as everyone else is concerned.  Quit pretending!  Show us your calculations and answer the questions such as how the Lunar Grand Prix was filmed.

Seconded, come on Anywho lets cut the crap about 'slippery as ice lunar surfaces', the obvious ease in which a vehicle will overturn in 1/6 gravity and how much a single astronaut would destroy the stability of the LR.

Why not Prove that you are right with the appropriate engineering/design calculations to show the lack of stability of the LR .....and whilst you are at it can you show with the appropriate geological evidence that the lunar surface is as 'slippery as ice'...... and then seeing as you beleive the whole thing was faked...you must have some relevant insight into how it was faked...just how did they film it on Earth? Becuase if it was faked I and many many others really would like to know how it was done.

[gillianren]

Moreover, if it's so easy as all that to prove it was fake, why hasn't every auto manufacturer in the world called them out on it?  Every tire manufacturer?  Every auto racer?  Every off-road enthusiast?  The fact that pretty much all of them accept the footage as shown should prove something, right?

[RAF]

It's funny how popular sci-fi takes precedence over the laws of physics in all of the lunar footage.

Is this supposed to be evidence for something?

When will you be presenting evidence that the rovers were faked?

[RAF]

Why not Prove that you are right...

...or at least make an attempt to prove...

[RAF]

What defense will be put up against both the test and the numbers (and common sense) coinciding to tell us that 4WDiving will be virtually impossible on the moon?

Defense?....against what?

As has been stated too many times, your interpretation is not evidenced. If you expect anyone to take you seriously, you need to stop "declaring victory", and start providing actual evidence to "back up" the claims you have made.

...but I'm not holding my breath until I turn blue waiting for that to happen.

[nomuse]

A friend of mine points out that if Jupiter had a solid surface, you could drive on it.  Presumably, your car wouldn't tip over or slide around all the time.  But since Earth has much less surface gravity, then obviously driving HERE is impossible!

The point being, picking Earthlike conditions as some sort of norm is silly.  The physics don't say, "How far are we off from 1g?"  They say, "What is the calculated tipping moment for the conditions under discussion?"

[JayUtah]

I'll see how long I can put up with the added frustration for.

You're being indulged, not indulgent.  Your frustration is entirely of your own devising.  You're making an engineering argument without doing any engineering.  Your failure to convince practicing engineers properly frustrates you.

"My interpretation" is based on the physics...

Nonsense.  You patently don't understand the physics, and just about the only thing you've been doing for the past several pages is to state and restate your belief repeatedly and beg us to "all agree on it."  People are telling you why they don't accept your claims and they're telling you what it would take for them to accept them.  You're simply not listening, or else uninterested in discussion beyond browbeating.

...not some blind belief that they couldn't fake it.

My rejection of your claim is based on decades of experience as a professional engineer.  Your claim is laughably naive.  Don't pretend your argument is so evidently strong that disbelief in it can only be the product of naivete or pig-headedness.  You fail to convince because you can't do more than state a belief.

The numbers back up that a loose surface, combined with 1/6g, will be about as slippery as ice...

Asked and answered.  Don't repeat yourself.

...what we see in the actual footage is very good traction with virtually no slipping and sliding to represent treacherous conditions.

Asked and answered.  The purpose and parameters of the Grand Prix were explained to you, along with a refutory analysis.  You have failed to address any of it.

What defense will be put up against both the test...

Asked and answered.  Your layman's expectations for what the test should depict are not a valid yardstick.

...and the numbers...

Asked and answered.  Your make-it-up-as-you-go analytical methods are not valid.  You will not explain why you refuse to use industry-standard models.  Also, you were caught asking questions that were answered in your own sources.  You are unprepared to support your claims.

...(and common sense)...

Irrelevant.  Science and engineering exist precisely because "common sense" (i.e., uninformed intuition) is so often wrong.  You are being asked to supply an appropriately rigorous support for your claims, which contradict the conclusions of the entire engineering world.  You will have to do more than "common sense."

I expect to be told that the lunar surface is not a loose surface but is in fact very cohesive, yet what we see in all the footage is a very loose surface moving freely beneath the astronauts feet.

Asked and answered.  You were directed to the studies of matrixing and cementation, but have declined to comment.  In spite of all available knowledge, you simply resort to your subjective lay interpretation of video.  Sorry, you are not the guru of lunar regolith.  Others are, because they studied it.  I will accept their findings over your idle speculation.

You have no knowledge of the lunar surface characteristics, so you simply assume it must be like something you're already familiar with.  No, the problem will not be dumbed down to your level.  If you want to be believed, you will need to rise to the level of the professionals who study this.

I expect to be told there is something almost magical about the design of the tires, yet they have no deep tread, and have a relatively smooth shallow chevron covering 50% of the surface area.

And if you knew anything about the soil mechanics of the lunar surface, you'd realize why a 50% occlusion works better than a "deep tread."  The surface of the chevrons was not the frictive interface, it was the weight-bearing portion.  Further, please enlighten us with your learned conclusions on why rubber pneumatic tires are the safest thing to use on a lunar roving vehicle.

...so do we just ignore that it absolutely flies in the face of conventional design

You aren't an expert on tire design, conventional or otherwise.  Keep the magic to yourself.  You're asking us to believe that you, a layman, have magically come up with the smoking gun that negates five decades of informed belief by the engineering community.

[Not Myself]

The point being, picking Earthlike conditions as some sort of norm is silly.  The physics don't say, "How far are we off from 1g?"  They say, "What is the calculated tipping moment for the conditions under discussion?"

You could certainly make a case for 1g being the norm for biological entities which evolved on earth, but I don't think the rover falls into that category.  Earth cars are engineered for earth, moon buggies are engineered for the moon.

[smartcooky]

I'll see how long I can put up with the added frustration for.

You wouldn't tell a mathematician they they have the solution to a quadratic equation wrong if you didn't even understand how to do quadratic equations.

You wouldn't tell football player the he had broken the rules if you didn't even understand what the rules of football were.

You wouldn't tell an English teacher that they had spelled some words incorrectly if you didn't actually yourself know how they were spelled.

Yet, you are quite willing to tell highly experienced engineers they are wrong, when you clearly do not understand the engineering yourself. You substitute your own flawed intuition in place of sound, calculable, engineering principles.

As long as you stay your current course, you will continue to be frustrated. You might be able to get away with making unsubstantiated, unproven and false statements on CT websites, but you will find that this approach does not work here, because people like Lunar Orbit, ka9q and JayUtah will call your bluff every time. You will continue to be pressed for your calculations to prove your assertions correct until you either provide them, or become so frustrated with not being taken seriously, that you no longer post here.

This is the reason why you'll never see ignorant fools like Jarrah White and Bart Sibrel here, because they cannot control the posts to suppress those posters who understand the engineering, physics and maths involved. If any of them posted here with their preposterous theories, guys like the ones I mentioned above would tear their arguments to ribbons; and they know it.

[anywho]

I expect to be told that the lunar surface is not a loose surface but is in fact very cohesive, yet what we see in all the footage is a very loose surface moving freely beneath the astronauts feet.

Asked and answered.  You were directed to the studies of matrixing and cementation, but have declined to comment.  In spite of all available knowledge, you simply resort to your subjective lay interpretation of video.  Sorry, you are not the guru of lunar regolith.  Others are, because they studied it.  I will accept their findings over your idle speculation.

So I should study matrixing and cementation to tell me that the lunar surface is, contrary to the visual evidence presented as the lunar surface, not a loose surface?

The sad thing is that most here will probably agree with you that the lunar regolith does not fit into the category of a loose surface, in spite of what they can see with their own eyes, namely the dirt moving freely and easily when disturbed, along with deep footprints etc.

I am being very honest and very objective when I characterise the lunar surface as "loose", any numbers can be fudged but the visual evidence is very clear, the surface, as presented, is loose.

It is impossible for me to independently test the coefficient of friction for lunar soil and the rover tires, but I can still clearly see that it is a loose surface, and a loose surface with 1/6g equals a very low CoF. Using basic numbers available the lunar surface ends up about as slippery as ice.

I expect to be told there is something almost magical about the design of the tires, yet they have no deep tread, and have a relatively smooth shallow chevron covering 50% of the surface area.

And if you knew anything about the soil mechanics of the lunar surface, you'd realize why a 50% occlusion works better than a "deep tread."  The surface of the chevrons was not the frictive interface, it was the weight-bearing portion. 

Actually, I'm pretty sure read somewhere that the chevrons are there to stop the tires filling up with dirt, either way they both restrict the frictive surface to 50%, and, bizarrely, recess the all important frictive surface as well, but no matter how nonsensical this design is, we must have faith that they overcame both the loose surface and 1/6g to give us 4WDriving on the moon with traction that looks remarkably similar to a loose surface on earth.

You wouldn't tell a mathematician they they have the solution to a quadratic equation wrong if you didn't even understand how to do quadratic equations.

The little boy in the story of the emperor has no clothes was completely wrong to state the obvious?

So even when it is obvious for all to see that the moon has a loose surface everyone should just agree that, although we can see the dirt moving very freely with our own eyes, because the learnered  kings men have said it is not loose you should not believe what you see with your own eyes?

This is like pulling teeth, can one of you please agree that the surface of the moon, as presented in the apollo footage, is a loose surface.

[ka9q]

Irrelevant.  Science and engineering exist precisely because "common sense" (i.e., uninformed intuition) is so often wrong.

It's amazing how often we get appeals to "common sense". If "common sense" were all that we humans needed, we wouldn't have to waste 12 years (and often 4, 5, 6 or more) of our lives getting educated instead of producing. We wouldn't have to waste a significant chunk of our tax dollars on schools and teachers -- something even most conservatives think is so important that it should be provided free to everyone as a socialistic government service.

If "common sense" were all we humans needed, we'd still be living as we have for most of our 200,000 - 300,000 year existence: as small bands of hunter-gatherers in the tropics. It wasn't until a few of us set their "common sense" aside and designed an effective system to discover how the world really works that we made real progress.

[cjameshuff]

It's amazing how often we get appeals to "common sense". If "common sense" were all that we humans needed,

Casinos would go out of business.

Relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

[JayUtah]

So I should study matrixing and cementation to tell me that the lunar surface is, contrary to the visual evidence presented as the lunar surface, not a loose surface?

"Visual evidence" is simply you watching videos and trying to draw quantitative conclusions from it.  So yes, you should study actual quantitative assessments rather than guessing.

I am being very honest and very objective when I characterise the lunar surface as "loose"...

You're just repeatedly begging the question.

Actually, I'm pretty sure read somewhere that the chevrons are there to stop the tires filling up with dirt...

No, but you're close.

...and, bizarrely, recess the all important frictive surface as well...

Why is that bizarre?  Again, if you understood cementation and matrixing you'd understand where the traction comes from.  And no, it's not a simple surface-shearing-on-surface model.

...but no matter how nonsensical this design is...

Your layman's judgment for what is "nonsensical" is irrelevant.  You simply don't understand the design, so you assume it must be wrong.  That will always fail to impress.

...we must have faith that they overcame both the loose surface and 1/6g to give us 4WDriving on the moon with traction that looks remarkably similar to a loose surface on earth.

Exactly the opposite.  There is no faith required in engineering, but you do have to understand it.  The design principles are well established here.  The models are well understood, although they are not the simple ones you guess they are.  The testing is well established.  And generations of engineers subsequently offer their informed acceptance of it.

You're the one asking for faith.  You demand belief, but you fail to provide rigor.  You argue strictly from analogy you demand and assume must be relevant.  You allude to science, but do no homework.  You ask us to take on faith your interpretation of a few seconds of video as indicative of a quantitative condition.

The little boy in the story of the emperor has no clothes was completely wrong to state the obvious?

Your conclusions are not self-evident no matter how fervently you wish them to be.

This is like pulling teeth, can one of you please agree that the surface of the moon, as presented in the apollo footage, is a loose surface.

Your frustration is irrelevant, and it is entirely of your own devising.  This is obviously the first time you've had to make any sort of formal argument, and any sort of argument involving engineering and engineering rationale.  Until you come up with a more objective and supported claim than "Because I say so," and until your statements rise above "Will someone please just agree that I'm right," you will make zero headway here -- properly so.

[RAF]

...can one of you please agree that the surface of the moon, as presented in the apollo footage, is a loose surface.

So you have stooped to "begging' for someone to agree with you?

Delicious...