Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

[anywho]

It is often said that if astronauts could not even sit on a Lunar Rover here on Earth because the Rovers were built of such lightweight construction that they "would have collapsed in 1 g if the crew sat on it." (1), and that the " The vehicle could support its own weight on earth, but no more" (2).

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.

Hi All, my first topical post... Anywho you appear to be talking with total emotional conviction and no subject knowledge whatsoever!

WHO exactly said that the Lunar Rover would have collapsed under 1G? You see it's really no good saying 'oh someone (with obvious and total authority) has said that xxx occurred"... you really do have to say who that 'Someone' is, otherwise you could be quoting your sister's 5 year old son and expect us to go 'oooh!....ahh! an enlightened one!"

WTF? Are you for real? Do you see the little (1) and (2) next to the quotes? That means I have a reference for each quote and both are NASA sources, not a nephew of mine.

if I were to fit a shock absorber on my bike that had a rating of 50Kg and I suddenly sat on my bike would it collapse like a delicate flower?...no of course it wouldn't.... I may however damage components and I certainly wouldn't be able to ride the bike let alone ride it safely!

Lol, this actually fits with my position more-so than any arguments against it.

If you can't sit on it, you can't ride it over bumpy terrain.

[anywho]

Here's a picture of the Apollo 15 crew sitting in the Rover with no supports. Shock, horror, there's even a third crew-member leaning on it. Now, by the standard of evidence the anywho uses, this must prove that the LRV wasn't a fake and it was OK in 1G



Care to comment, anywho?

You people seem to have a problem comprehending that it is not me who is saying it can't be sat on here on earth, it is something which often comes up in official NASA documents. I am saying it is a load of rubbish and I am glad many of you seem to agree.

Myth busted?

[anywho]

I have had a bit of a browse through some of the articles and files that are linked to in the "Were the Lunar Rovers faked" thread, and I find it interesting that I have not seen any guidelines or testing done for one astronaut on board.

As I pointed out throughout the thread, the rovers with one astronaut are horribly unbalanced with basically 3/4 the weight on one side, so one might expect for there to be some guidelines given for when only one astronaut is on board, but there appears to be no guidelines, nor any specific testing done.

Of course there may some testing done, and some guidelines, but in the links I've looked at I can't see any so I will be interested if anyone else knows of some.

I can see that one argument might be that if the imbalance of one astronaut is not outside of the acceptable limits for the vehicle then there is no reason for any specific guidelines.

The problem with this is that it does indeed appear as though only one astronaut shifts the CoG outside the acceptable limits which, if true, begs the question as to whether the rovers were ever designed for one astronaut, and if that is the case what were they doing driving in the most extreme manner when only one astronaut was on board?

In particular, one might expect a lower speed limit for one astronaut, yet by all accounts the highest speeds were reached with only one on board, such as Gene Cernan claiming a lunar speed record of 18 kilometers/hour (1).

So what is the allowable CoG envelope?

The allowable center of gravity location or the total LRV, including payload, is shown in figure 5-1. Loading the LRV such that the center of gravity falls outside the defined envelope will cause degradation of performance, including:

a. Possible steering discontinuity
b. Possible traction drive discontinuity
c. Possible periods of instability

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRV_OpsNAS8-25145Pt6.pdf

Now, my back of the envelope calculations put the CoG about 7 inches off center with one astronaut, and that is well outside the envelope, so it would seem to be valid to question if the rovers were ever designed to be driven with one astronaut at all, let alone driven to the extreme.


(1) http://www.space-pictures.com/view/pictures-of-earth/pictures-of-the-moon/moon-landing/apollo-17.php

[Zakalwe]

You people seem to have a problem comprehending that it is not me who is saying it can't be sat on here on earth, it is something which often comes up in official NASA documents. I am saying it is a load of rubbish and I am glad many of you seem to agree.
Myth busted?

My understanding (and I'm happy to be corrected on this) is that your proposition went as follows:
The LRV couldnt support the weight of itself and 2 x astronauts under 1G. You used quoted from NASA documentation as evidence. from there you then jumped to a whole load of unproven, unsupported conclusions, namely:

• There wasn't enough traction on the Moon
• The LRVs were underpowered and couldn't move
• The vehicles were unbalanced and would roll over at the slightest provocation
• There wasn't enough traction on the Moon

From that, you then concluded that it was "farcical to believe they could possibly be real." All of your assertions leading up to your final conclusion have been debunked. Ergo, your conclusion is erroneous.

[Zakalwe]

As I pointed out throughout the thread, the rovers with one astronaut are horribly unbalanced with basically 3/4 the weight on one side

But that is your assertion. Where is the evidence or calculations to support it???

but in the links I've looked at I can't see any so I will be interested if anyone else knows of some.

If you dont know this ^^,

then how can you claim this?? VV

The problem with this is that it does indeed appear as though only one astronaut shifts the CoG outside the acceptable limits which, if true, begs the question as to whether the rovers were ever designed for one astronaut, and if that is the case what were they doing driving in the most extreme manner when only one astronaut was on board?

Now, my back of the envelope calculations put the CoG about 7 inches off center with one astronaut, and that is well outside the envelope,

Have you considered that your calculations are incorrect?
Please post your calculations so they can be checked by someone who will use more rigour than your "back of the envelope" calculations

so it would seem to be valid to question if the rovers were ever designed to be driven with one astronaut at all, let alone driven to the extreme.

The question lies in one article that you previously linked to " Since the handling characteristics of the LRV could not be fully tested on Earth, a "grand prix" test was performed by the CDR on A-15 & 16. The trainer provided adequate simulation, the major difference was the necessity to pay constant attention to the lunar terrain in order to have adequate warning of obstacles, especially in adverse lighting situations. Braking required ~2 x the 1 g distance. Steering was not as responsive between 8 - 10 kph with hard-over inputs. "
From

[ineluki]

As I pointed out throughout the thread

You mean as you repeatedly and dishonestly claimed based on your credo of
- i don't understand
- i don't want to understand
- i simply want my idea to be true

[Andromeda]

I am still waiting for an answer to my question, Anywho.

If the rover could not hold the weight of the crew, where do you believe the film of the crew driving the rover was shot?

You have already claimed Apollo was faked, yet your claim about the rover collapsing in 1g means that it cannot have been faked.  That is the contradiction you are ignoring, because you know you don't have an answer.  To throw your own question back at you, are you for real?

[geo7863]

It is often said that if astronauts could not even sit on a Lunar Rover here on Earth because the Rovers were built of such lightweight construction that they "would have collapsed in 1 g if the crew sat on it." (1), and that the " The vehicle could support its own weight on earth, but no more" (2).

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.

Hi All, my first topical post... Anywho you appear to be talking with total emotional conviction and no subject knowledge whatsoever!

WHO exactly said that the Lunar Rover would have collapsed under 1G? You see it's really no good saying 'oh someone (with obvious and total authority) has said that xxx occurred"... you really do have to say who that 'Someone' is, otherwise you could be quoting your sister's 5 year old son and expect us to go 'oooh!....ahh! an enlightened one!"

WTF? Are you for real? Do you see the little (1) and (2) next to the quotes? That means I have a reference for each quote and both are NASA sources, not a nephew of mine.

if I were to fit a shock absorber on my bike that had a rating of 50Kg and I suddenly sat on my bike would it collapse like a delicate flower?...no of course it wouldn't.... I may however damage components and I certainly wouldn't be able to ride the bike let alone ride it safely!

Lol, this actually fits with my position more-so than any arguments against it.

If you can't sit on it, you can't ride it over bumpy terrain.

I do sincerely apologise, My mistake I will go back and look at your 'references'...... then get back to you!

And as for  your second point... to paraphrase yourself...WTF? Are you for real?.... who says I can't sit on it?... have a reality check fella! stop assuming that what you don't know means it ain't so

If I fit a 50 Kg shock for my fat +100Kg body I can, repeat can, sit on it! Just like the astronauts in full kit can, repeat can, sit on the Lunar Rover. I can not, repeat can not, drive it safely (or probably without causing damage) . But it will not, repeat not, burst apart like a delicate little flower, which is the position you seem to hold with the Lunar Rover.

It clearly can support the weight (its alright no need to thank me for proving your initial premise wrong!) but cannot be used on Earth...but its not supposed to be used on Earth is it?

[RAF]

You people seem to have a problem comprehending...

Not at all...we simply do not accept your "interpretation".

The rovers worked on the Moon "as advertized". If you disagree...if you have some form of evidence (other than misinterpretations of NASA documents) then by all means, present that evidence.

Myth busted?

The myth that the rovers were faked...yes...

[AtomicDog]

"If I ran the zooo..."

(Sung to the tune of "If I were a rich man. ..")

[AtomicDog]

Anywho, why do you need two Rover threads?

[RAF]

I have had a bit of a browse through some of the articles and files that are linked to in the "Were the Lunar Rovers faked" thread, and I find it interesting that I have not seen any guidelines or testing done for one astronaut on board.

I find it "interesting" that you are incapable of googling "one man lunar rover".

...and I'm not doing your "homework" for you...

[geo7863]

So Anyhow do you accept that the LR can be sat on (even if not actually operated) on Earth? do I need to go back and look at your links and respond to my mistake?

[nomuse]

Oh, look; it's shadow-boxing again.

"I didn't mean what I appeared to be arguing.  We all agree now, right?  Good thing I was there to instruct everyone else, because now we've all learned something, right?"

Will he EVER make an honest, open retraction?

[nomuse]

Is there any reason outside of the OP's vanity to have a second thread?  I vote it be locked.