Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

[anywho]

To reiterate what Donnie B said:

According to you Anywho, they faked going to the Moon which would mean that any videos or images of the rover driving could not have been taken on the Moon.

But you use the same videos and images to show how loose and slippery the lunar surface is.

Do you not see a problem there? Please directly address this in your next post.

I am saying 4WDrivng, as presented n the appolo footage is faked, and part of the evidence is that the surface of the moon, as presented in the apollo footage, is loose and therefore combined with 1/6g presents an unassailable traction problem for the rovers, as presented.

There is no contradiction in using apollo footage, as presented, to prove the apollo footage, as presented, is fake.

Does this really have to be explained? This message board invites people to put hoax theories forward so it should not make your head explode that proponents of the hoax theory use the apollo footage to support their claims.

Well, it's no secret that physics is not my strong subject, and that report is so far over my head it threatened to give me a nosebleed, but even I can spot the flaw in that statement. 57 lbs represents the weight on each wheel on the moon. The LRV wasn't designed to operate in the Earth environment; there would be no reason to test the wheels with the earth weight of the loaded rover.

The wheel with 57lbs of weight on the moon has to move the equivalent of 342lbs of mass horizontally on the moon, and the testing shows it can't be done.

I am not saying they should have put 342lbs of weight on the wheels, I m saying the wheels have to get enough traction to be able to pull 342lbs horizontally in order for the rovers to move on the moon, and not only does the testing show that the wheels slip well before that, but the equipment is not even sufficient to test it fully.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/PerfBoeingLRVWheelsRpt1.pdf

The weight is 1/6 on the moon, but the mass that has to be propelled horizontally is the same as on earth. This is where the traction problems are.

[raven]

Perhaps anywho, you are incorrectly thinking that the lunar dust is as described in Arthur C. Clarke's famous SF book "A Fall of Moondust"...."an extremely fine dust, a fine powder far drier than the contents of a terrestrial desert and which almost flows like water" and you cannot see how the wheels of a vehicle can possibly grip this surface.

Well its not like that. Lunar soil becomes very dense beneath the top layer of regolith, in much the same way that sand on a dry beach becomes compacted below the top surface though the action of water and tides. Its why I can drive my 4WD quad bike on a totally dry stretch of my  local beach without any difficulty at all.

Or you can walk in deserts at all. Beaches might be a bad example as there is things start getting wet not far down. Incidentally, despite been published in 1961, A Fall of Moondust 'predicts' the 'no stars' claim, a television crew mentioning how many viewers find a lack of visible stars to 'look wrong' and the technowizardry they required to get them visible in the same scene as a correctly exposed lunar surface.

[anywho]

the human eye is easily fooled, especially in situations--such as the Moon--out of our usual expectations. 

And I mean, heck, the eye is fooled all the time even by situations that we should be accustomed to; I can't tell you how many times around here people assume that the ground is solid and safe to walk across when in fact it's boggy.  You can tell get across it, probably, but it's slick and oozing.  But to the eye, it's fine!

And when you see someone sink into it, is that not then satisfactory to "see" that the ground is boggy?

Therefore, when I or anyone else who cares to look can see the surface of the moon* is easily disturbed and freely moving  under the feet of the astronauts*, is that not then satisfactory to "see" by eye that the surface is loose*?

*As presented by the apollo footage... (do I really have to keep explaining this?)

[ka9q]

someone who has demonstrated no grasp of the mathematics, physics or engineering princicples beyond high school level has misunderstood it.

Hey, don't knock high school physics and math. If he understood them at even that level we'd be well ahead.

A lot of people would be better off if they'd actually learned and retained high school physics and math.

[Andromeda]

the human eye is easily fooled, especially in situations--such as the Moon--out of our usual expectations. 

And I mean, heck, the eye is fooled all the time even by situations that we should be accustomed to; I can't tell you how many times around here people assume that the ground is solid and safe to walk across when in fact it's boggy.  You can tell get across it, probably, but it's slick and oozing.  But to the eye, it's fine!

And when you see someone sink into it, is that not then satisfactory to "see" that the ground is boggy?

Therefore, when I or anyone else who cares to look can see the surface of the moon* is easily disturbed and freely moving  under the feet of the astronauts*, is that not then satisfactory to "see" by eye that the surface is loose*?

*As presented by the apollo footage... (do I really have to keep explaining this?)

I want you to explain why you think the missions were faked, yet you also claim to know everything there is to know about the surface of the moon from the Apollo films of it.

The rover is clearly shown moving well on the surface you claim it cannot move on.  How do you resolve this contradiction?  It looks to me like you are simply ignoring it.

Why have you consistently refused to acknowledge the people who point out the differences between the uppermost layer of regolith and the layers below it?

Please also explain why you think your clear ignorance of engineering and physics should be taken more seriously than the work of experienced engineers.

[Jason Thompson]

And when you see someone sink into it, is that not then satisfactory to "see" that the ground is boggy?

And when you have seen that, does that give you enough information to devise a machine to move across it?

Therefore, when I or anyone else who cares to look can see the surface of the moon* is easily disturbed and freely moving  under the feet of the astronauts*, is that not then satisfactory to "see" by eye that the surface is loose*?

*As presented by the apollo footage... (do I really have to keep explaining this?)

What you really have to explain is why you are using the Apollo footage at all to bolster your argument that the rover could not operate on the surface. Can you really not grasp the fact that you are using footage of the rover actually moving over that loose surface to try and tell us it couldn't move over such a loose surface?

There is footage of a rover being sat on and operated at decent speeds over what you claim is obviously a loose surface. The vehicle on the film footage manifestly can operate on that surface, so how can you possibly claim it can't?

You have been asked this many times now, anywho. Please will you do us the courtesy of actually answering that question. What is going on in that footage if not a rover being operated by one astronaut on a loose surface: something you claim is impossible?

[gwiz]

I am not saying they should have put 342lbs of weight on the wheels, I m saying the wheels have to get enough traction to be able to pull 342lbs horizontally in order for the rovers to move on the moon, and not only does the testing show that the wheels slip well before that, but the equipment is not even sufficient to test it fully.

How much of a horizontal force do you need?  Unless you expect 1 g acceleration or the ability to climb a really steep slope, things that most cars cannot manage, the horizontal force is less than the vehicle weight.

You really are not thinking this traction business through.  You claim that the vehicle would tip over, but this will only happen if the wheels exert a lot of sideways force.  You simultaneously claim that the wheels don't have much traction, so can't exert such force.  You are refuting your own argument.

[Jason Thompson]

I am saying 4WDrivng, as presented n the appolo footage is faked, and part of the evidence is that the surface of the moon, as presented in the apollo footage, is loose and therefore combined with 1/6g presents an unassailable traction problem for the rovers, as presented.

There is no contradiction in using apollo footage, as presented, to prove the apollo footage, as presented, is fake.

There is a contradiction.

If that footage is fake then it is not on the Moon and therefore you cannot use it to judge the properties of the lunar surface. The rover in the footage clearly is not having difficulty with that surface.

In order to use that footage to describe what the lunar surface is like you are implicitly agreeing that it actually does show the lunar surface, therefore is not faked. The rover in the footage clearly can drive over that surface.

Does this really have to be explained? This message board invites people to put hoax theories forward so it should not make your head explode that proponents of the hoax theory use the apollo footage to support their claims.

The problem is the way you are trying to use it. If that footage does not show the lunar surface, you cannot use it to support your argument that the rover could not operate on the Moon by using the footage of that non-lunar surface.

As presented, that rover has no difficulty with that surface.

The wheel with 57lbs of weight on the moon has to move the equivalent of 342lbs of mass horizontally on the moon, and the testing shows it can't be done.

There's the flaw in your logic. Shifting a given mass horizontally requires overcoming the inertia of the system. That is not the same as exerting a force greater than the weight of the object. I can push a car along a flat surface provided the brakes are off and it is in neutral. I cannot lift it. I can't lift it because I cannot exert a greater upward force than the weight of the car. I don't have to do that in order to make it move laterally, however. I can move a piano around a concert hall, rolling it on its castors. I can't lift it.

The weight is 1/6 on the moon, but the mass that has to be propelled horizontally is the same as on earth. This is where the traction problems are.

No, this is where you misunderstanding is. To overcome the inertia of a given mass does not require overcoming its weight unless you are trying to lift it.

[JayUtah]

Therefore, when I or anyone else who cares to look can see the surface of the moon* is easily disturbed and freely moving  under the feet of the astronauts*, is that not then satisfactory to "see" by eye that the surface is loose*?

You're trying to infer traction parameters from a few seconds' casual inspection of surface being aggressively disturbed.  That's not good enough if you're going to challenge every engineer on the planet.

No rigor, no credibility.  Got it?

*As presented by the apollo footage... (do I really have to keep explaining this?)

Yes you do.  And more.  And please look up what "begging the question" means.

First you have to tell us what magical faculties you possess that allow you to infer specific parameters as you claim to have done.  "Easy to see" and "common sense" are cop-outs.  Especially when I've mentioned what surprises the physical sciences discovered.  But hey, if you're uninterested in the science then there are plenty of late night crackpot radio shows that will indulge you while the rest of us continue engineering.

Second you have to address the gaping logical flaw in your argument.  That's the dichotomy of claiming that the rovers were faked (meaning that film allegedly depicting them operating on the lunar surface cannot be what it claims to be), while at the same time you're using this allegedly faked footage to infer properties of the real lunar surface.

If you spend less time complaining about having no credibility, and more time listening to people tell you why you're non-credible, you'd make more headway.

[RAF]

There is no contradiction in using apollo footage, as presented, to prove the apollo footage, as presented, is fake.

Well, you go right on believing that....won't change the reality of the Apollo missions, or the fact that you "say" a lot, but have proven NOTHING.

Does this really have to be explained?

Listen fella....your have NOTHING to "teach" us...you only bring ignorance, and irrelevant personal opinion to this board.

[RAF]

...by Anywho claiming the rovers were fake while citing the footage of them in operation on the moon as evidence to support the soil characteristics of the moon certainly qualifies for an entry. 

I'll say....and the sad thing is...his denial of that obvious contradiction.

[Tedward]

There should be a wooden spoon award for stirrer of the year.

[RAF]

This message board invites people to put hoax theories forward...

Yes....this board also expects those who promote hoax "theories" to back -up those theories WITH TESTABLE, CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.

When will you be getting around to doing that?

[Tedward]

^^^^

That has been the ask from page one. The reply is a dodge, always a dodge in its many forms.

He/she also claimed the motors were not up to it and there is no reply to that yet. Page one. I think it is ahuge chain yank to see how long he/she can keep going.

[raven]

Oh well, if nothing else there is the education value, though not in the way Anywho intended.