Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

[Abaddon]

Funny how Anywho has focused on Jason...

What's your problem? You did as well! LOL

[Abaddon]

Back to the topic at hand, I await Anywho's explanation for the contradiction in his claims. Where exactly was the LRV footage filmed, if not on the moon?

Either it was filmed on Earth, and the LRV was able to perform under Earth gravity, or...
It was faked on the Moon somehow under 1/6 gravity, or...
Something else.

[Jason Thompson]

Funny how Anywho has focused on Jason...

What's your problem? You did as well! LOL

I think she's allowed to. In fact I'd be disappointed if she didn't...

[Jason Thompson]

Anywho, take a look at these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractive_force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-10-10-2

Pay particular attention to the specs of the locomotive and the difference between its weight and its tractive effort. The other page gives its starting tractive effort, which is also significantly less than its own weight. And yet, somehow, that thing moves....

[gillianren]

Funny how Anywho has focused on Jason...

Especially because it's usually Jay.  Maybe we should get Jason to ask our questions for us.

[Noldi400]

Um, guys? What's a pull coefficient? What is drawbar pull?

I read looked at the report being discussed and was totally lost. Just too many variables and unfamiliar terms to remember, and I couldn't get a picture in my head of how the test was being done.

Lil help? 

[Zakalwe]

Did you hear the one about the Irish Zamboni driver?

He wanted to take the Zamboni on a hill-climb, but he abandoned the idea when he couldn't find an Ice Hockey rink on a hillside.

^^Nice line in racism. What's for your encore? Pointing out that women are weaker than men? That all Muslims are terrorists?


An apology for making out that a nation's people are stupid and backward just because they happened to be born in a certain geography would be welcome. Especially as The Learning Curve report places the Irish education system ahead of Denmark, Australia, Poland, Germany, Belgium and the US (amongst others).
http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/the-report

OK, I'll apologise to myself then?

No! Wait! That would be only a half apology, since I'm only half-Irish (mother's side, Kerry born and bred!!)

Sometimes a joke is just a joke.


(PM on the way)

And you've got one back.

My last post on this as I do not want to create a thread drift.
You might find "jokes" about race funny or humorous. It might even be acceptable in certain backwaters of the world. But it's not acceptable everywhere, and it has no place in a thread about Apollo (read the Forum Rules if you need clarification).
I'm pretty sure that there are places in the Deep South that find "jokes" based on race hilarious. But I'm sure if you starting posting them then there might be a justified backlash.

Over and out.

[twik]

Back to the topic at hand, I await Anywho's explanation for the contradiction in his claims. Where exactly was the LRV footage filmed, if not on the moon?

Either it was filmed on Earth, and the LRV was able to perform under Earth gravity, or...
It was faked on the Moon somehow under 1/6 gravity, or...
Something else.

I suppose that one could try to argue that:

1. The hoaxers deliberately described the LRV as frail, because they wanted to provide evidence of how they were engineering for low gravity.

2. They then build a much more rugged LRV, and filmed it in Earth gravity, because the original would not work on Earth.

3. They published the tests that anywho claims prove it could not work on the Moon, because ... um, because they're just stupid?

[smartcooky]

I suppose that one could try to argue that:

1. The hoaxers deliberately described the LRV as frail, because they wanted to provide evidence of how they were engineering for low gravity.

2. They then build a much more rugged LRV, and filmed it in Earth gravity, because the original would not work on Earth.

3. They published the tests that anywho claims prove it could not work on the Moon, because ... um, because they're just stupid?

4. In 40+ years, no engineers anywhere in the world have ever cottoned onto this stupidity, proves that all engineers everywhere in the the world are just NASA shills.

[JayUtah]

Funny how Anywho has focused on Jason...

Better him than me. 

[Abaddon]

Funny how Anywho has focused on Jason...

Better him than me. 

Quitter. 

[smartcooky]

Funny how Anywho has focused on Jason...

Better him than me. 

Quitter. 

Careful, you could be characterising engineers as "quitters". 

Frankly. I think anywho probably knows who Jay is (by reputation) and probably understands that he will be even more over his head if he were to take him on. "Bringing a knife to a gunfight" springs to mind.

[Andromeda]

Another example for Anywho:



Hmm, does water count as a "loose surface"?! 

[darren r]

Back to the topic at hand, I await Anywho's explanation for the contradiction in his claims. Where exactly was the LRV footage filmed, if not on the moon?

Either it was filmed on Earth, and the LRV was able to perform under Earth gravity, or...
It was faked on the Moon somehow under 1/6 gravity, or...
Something else.

I suppose that one could try to argue that:

1. The hoaxers deliberately described the LRV as frail, because they wanted to provide evidence of how they were engineering for low gravity.

2. They then build a much more rugged LRV, and filmed it in Earth gravity, because the original would not work on Earth.

3. They published the tests that anywho claims prove it could not work on the Moon, because ... um, because they're just stupid?

I've been thinking for a while that anywho would present this as an explanation. I'm surprised he hasn't yet. Of course, it still means that he can't use the characteristics of the Lunar surface in the video as an argument.

[ka9q]

The fact is that an object of 100 kg mass, weighs 100 kg on the Earth because it is in a 1G field

W = mg  ... 100 x 1 = 100

and in the lunar gravity its weight is 16.7 kg

W = mg ... 100 x 0.167 = 16.7 (disregarding mascons of course!!)

I think it's reasonable to say that a bathroom scale measures mass in kilograms as long as one remembers how it works and the limitations of that method: by measuring the force of gravity and converting that to kilograms, implicitly assuming an acceleration of 9.8... m/s^2. I.e., it's a mass-measuring device with a mechanism of operation that works fine on earth as long as the minor variations in gravity from place to place are below your accuracy requirements, as they usually are. Any precise mass-measuring instrument of this type would have to be calibrated for local gravity to give correct results.

So I think it's simply wrong (as well as extremely confusing and error-prone) to say that an object that's 100 kg on earth becomes only 16.7 kg on the moon. It's still 100 kg on the moon, as it would be measured by a scale properly calibrated to the local gravity. It's just 6 times easier to pick up.

Suppose the bathroom-type scale had never been invented. Suppose we still measured things with the balance scale, matching the pull of gravity on our test mass with that on a set of calibrated masses. Then, without any changes, an object weighing 100 kg on earth would still weigh 100 kg on the moon, or anywhere that had a non-negligible gravity field. So would a bathroom-type scale with a built-in accelerometer to compensate for local gravity variations. I.e., the notion of the kilogram as a unit of gravity force depends not only on a specific local gravity field, but on the use of a specific type of device to measure it. That's silly.

SI carefully distinguishes between mass and force, something largely unknown to those who measure all forces and masses in pounds. It's a bit like the notion of grammatical gender in many non-English languages, only it actually makes very real sense. Just as English speakers can't impose their rules on other peoples' languages, they should not introduce their confusion between mass and force into other measurement systems.