Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

[Tedward]

I think suspension does not factor one iota for anywho theory to have an inkling of being in the ball park of possibility. That much is obvious. Examples have already been suggested. He/she will not go down that path perhaps? That way leads to the dark side of evidence.

But maybe I am wrong.

[anywho]

No, the entire wheel is sufficiently flexible that all of it interacts with the regolith. The wheels threw up huge amounts of dust because the dust could get in through the mesh and then be thrown out again. You don't get to dismiss the main construction of the wheel so you can focus on the smooth metal parts just because they fit your argument better.

How ironic that someone who describes the tyre setup as "flexible and a wire mesh", thereby completely ignoring the chevrons, should accuse me of focusing on the area that suits my argument 

We'll look at the witness marks should we? It looks to me as though the wire mesh does not touch the ground at all except for maybe between the chevrons, of the two of us I certainly represented the tyres in a way that is supported by the evidence.

Here's a photo of The Apollo 17 LRV being fitted to Jack Schmitt and Eugene Cernan before it is stowed on the LM seen in the background. Notice that there are supports under the frame so it will hold their weight in Earth gravity.

Yes those supports are needed under the frame because it is such a delicate little flower that it can't even "hold their weight", yet on the moon those same masses can literally jump onto the rovers and then slam them into bumps all they want without any concerns.


[/quote]

Were they delicate, or sturdy? Apparently both.

So delicate they can't be sat on, yet sturdy enough that they can be driven on bumpy uneven surfaces with confidence. The "with confidence" part is very important, on the moon any accident could result in death so they had to be confident that these vehicles, that could not even be sat on, would not fail over bumpy terrain.

Normally the opposite is true, you might be able to sit on and even ride a kids bike on a smooth surface for example, yet not ride it over a bumpy surface.

Whatever ye do don't question this paradigm shift lest ye be called a conspiracy nutter.

[Zakalwe]

Anywho, instead of repeating the same thing over and over, is there any chance that you will answer some of the outstanding questions that have been posed to you?

[Zakalwe]

It looks to me as though the wire mof the two of us I certainly represented the tyres in a way that is supported by the evidence.

Please explain why you think that this mesh would not be in contact with the regolith?

[Glom]

If the mesh didn't touch the ground, then what on the Moon excavated those tracks?

[anywho]

[Please explain why you think that this mesh would not be in contact with the regolith?

I did say the mesh would be in contact between the chevrons, perhaps in the interest of fairness you could ask Jason Thompson why he ignored the chevrons.

It is a very good photo anyhow, it's interesting how the chevrons are as pronounced as they are in the tracks when they lack depth against the mesh. The mesh must just allow the dust straight through.

'Night all

[Tedward]

Still be good to see any evidence that the vehicle is unstable and not strong enough for the job in hand. Not convinced that a gut feeling on a family motor counts as evidence. Somehow. Don't know why.

Some actual real evidence would be nice anywho. I do not expect it off you somehow, I expect this to get derailed and go off on a tangent. But down them paths there will be no evidence either. I expect a lot of dodging as well.

Am I psychic? Heck, I ought to be.....

Edit to add. Heck, my physic abilities made me forget about the motors not up to the job, that one has slipped off the radar.

[Jason Thompson]

How ironic that someone who describes the tyre setup as "flexible and a wire mesh", thereby completely ignoring the chevrons, should accuse me of focusing on the area that suits my argument

I ignored no part of the construction. Do not try to twist my arguments in lieu of actually dealing with the substance of them. You were the one who wanted to imply the smooth nature of the chevrons was the main part of the surface in contact with the regolith. I was pointing out that the wire mesh cannot be discounted.

We'll look at the witness marks should we? It looks to me as though the wire mesh does not touch the ground at all except for maybe between the chevrons,

Please explain why you think I was suggesting anything else.



You know, it sure looks from those clear imprints as if the rover wheels had no difficulty gaining traction on that loose surface. I certainly see no evidence of skidding or slipping. Do you?

Yes those supports are needed under the frame because it is such a delicate little flower that it can't even "hold their weight", yet on the moon

What exactly is your source for this statement you keep repeating?

those same masses can literally jump onto the rovers and then slam them into bumps all they want without any concerns.

You have had the difference between static and dynamic loading explained already.

Whatever ye do don't question this paradigm shift lest ye be called a conspiracy nutter.

Questioning is fine. Ignoring the answers and the other questions that arise is what marks you out as a 'conspiracy nutter'.

[Zakalwe]

Notice that there are supports under the frame so it will hold their weight in Earth gravity.[/b]

Can you please provide a source for this?

The wheels were designed to deform when in use. They were designed to be used in Lunar regolith. How do you know that loading the vehicle under Earth's gravity would not exceed the design rating for the wheel and permanently deform it? Especially when you consider that it would be sitting on a hard concrete floor, which would present a point load to the wheel, rather than the wheel digging into regolith and spreading the load. The supports under the frame may have been for that very purpose-to prevent damage to the wheels.


Are you allowing your desire that the LRV was a fake to totally blind you to alternative explanations?

[Echnaton]

It is the flat smooth chevrons that are the main part interacting with the regolith, not the wire mesh.

How ironic that someone who describes the tyre setup as "flexible and a wire mesh", thereby completely ignoring the chevrons, should accuse me of focusing on the area that suits my argument 

We'll look at the witness marks should we? It looks to me as though the wire mesh does not touch the ground at all except for maybe between the chevrons, of the two of us I certainly represented the tyres in a way that is supported by the evidence.

The impressions of the chevrons are pretty deep in the dirt for something that is a flat and smooth.  It is pretty obvious from looking at the photos and video of the moving rover that the tires regularly go into the dirt, a fact that makes your comparison to any rubber tired vehicle traveling on earth useless.    Please provide an numerical analysis of the traction of the actual tires used with the characteristics of the actual material the rover was driven in.  Remember, the rover designers new the characteristics of the lunar surface before the rovers flew.  For example, compare an estimate of the observed depth of the chevron impression to that of the foot prints.   Even simple guess on the depths will be OK as a place to start an informed analysis.  I am sure many people here could help you refine the work in a way that would lead to a clarification on why you disagree with us. 

[Echnaton]

It is a very good photo anyhow, it's interesting how the chevrons are as pronounced as they are in the tracks when they lack depth against the mesh.

Do you see the bands under the mesh?  What are they made of and how strong are they?  What function do they play in the tire design?

[Zakalwe]

It is a very good photo anyhow, it's interesting how the chevrons are as pronounced as they are in the tracks when they lack depth against the mesh. The mesh must just allow the dust straight through.

Of course, if you had bothered to read an of the links that I previously posted, then you would have come across a document called "The Development of Wheels for the Lunar Roving Vehicle" which explains exactly how the wheels work.

Or you could read the "Performance of Boeing LRV Wheels in a Lunar Soil Simulant" (reports 1 & 2) which describe the testing done on the wheels including traction and slip coefficients.

Or you could go here: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LRVdocs.html and read to your hearts content about the LRV.
But I guess that you won't do any of that, will you? And I guess that you won't answer a single one of the questions that I have posed to you. It's much easier to watch YouTube videos and make assumptions about things that you have absolutely zero knowledge of.  Isn't that right Anywho?

[Peter B]

No, the entire wheel is sufficiently flexible that all of it interacts with the regolith. The wheels threw up huge amounts of dust because the dust could get in through the mesh and then be thrown out again. You don't get to dismiss the main construction of the wheel so you can focus on the smooth metal parts just because they fit your argument better.

How ironic that someone who describes the tyre setup as "flexible and a wire mesh", thereby completely ignoring the chevrons, should accuse me of focusing on the area that suits my argument 

We'll look at the witness marks should we? It looks to me as though the wire mesh does not touch the ground at all except for maybe between the chevrons, of the two of us I certainly represented the tyres in a way that is supported by the evidence.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that's a photo taken on the Earth, not on the Moon. The edges of the tracks are too rounded for the cohesive lunar dust. Also, a very quick check of all the surface photos on Apollos 15, 16 and 17 didn't show anything equivalent.

Here's a photo from Apollo 16 of a track - one of the best I could find in a quick search...



See how crisp the edges are.

[Allan F]

The first photo is from Sahara. Put the photo ID into google, and it pops right up

[AtomicDog]

Hoax believers seem to like that photo. I've seen it before as part of the body of evidence of a HB representing how they thought Rover tracks appear.

http://www.canstockphoto.com/mark-of-the-moon-rover-0672620.html

anywho, why did you think that this was a NASA photo, or that it in any way represented the Lunar Rover? And if this is the quality of your research, why should we take your argument seriously?