Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

[Tedward]

Somehow I have just of thought how far the Dukes of Hazard might go on the Moon. How long can you shout yeeee ha for?

[Tedward]

This youtube clip has a sequence at the 2:04 mark showing how they tested for 1/6g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FVMfjPXwRO4#t=124s

Thanks for that, I don't have sound so I don't visit youtube much.

I can't hear what is being said but looking at the footage it shows that they did indeed use a skidcar equivalent setup for testing.

If you look at the testing it shows the difficulty of driving on the moon, even at those slow speeds (looks like walking pace) you can see wheels rising up into the air and that is on a very smooth surface compared to the mogully type terrain in the famous "grand prix" footage which was posted earlier.

Point of view rather than an authoritative statement?

I see the last test where they had to steer a bit, and lost a bit of control, that they appear to have not made it all the way across the test bed.

One test, did they lose control? Was that part of the test?

The biggest criticism I would have of the test is that they don't start on the loose surface. Why not? that is the most obvious test for traction. I live in a very sandy area and if I want to drive my 2wd over a sandy area that is a bit dodgy the way to do it is to get a bit of a run up and don't, under any circumstances, stop.

My 2wd is not suitable for sandy terrain yet it would pass that test.

Wonder if there have been any 2 wheel drive entrants in the Dakar Rally? Genuinely, I do not know. But it is a bit different to using your car on a bit of sand where you live compared to the Moon. I live near some of the largest dune systems in Europe and they make great places for walking. The conditions vary greatly but I would not compare any part of those dunes to the Moon.

To be honest, looking at that car bouncing around on that relatively smooth surface, at relatively slow speeds, I can't see how anyone could have confidence to drive at much higher speeds over much worse terrain, and, when only one person is on board, in a significantly unbalanced vehicle.

I can't see how a rally driver can keep a car on track but they do. My incredulity is not proof that a car cannot drive at 70+mph on a dirt track.

And, they seemingly have to have have a run up to help the vehicles across the test bed. At 2.18 it looks like both rear wheels rise up off the ground.
Thanks for posting it though, and I will take the time to look at the whole rover series later when I am at a better computer.

How many tests were there?

I am a bit stretched for time but I will address a some other comments later.

I expect that a full investigation would have notes to hand, calculations and other evidence so a quick copy and paste from your own notes would suffice?

[Andromeda]

More than that, they were test pilots.

Yes, I meant to say that but it was half three in the morning (couldn't sleep!) and I wasn't thinking clearly.

[Glom]

Some Real Numbers:
According to a 1972 Boeing handout, the Apollo 17 LRV had a weight capacity of 1,140 pounds [517 kg] Earth weight). This allowed for 400 lbs for each astronaut (and his gear) and 340 pounds of equipment and samples.

That's about 86 kilos earth equivalent, so yes, two astronauts even in street clothes would be over its capacity on earth. The document seems to be some kind of public or press handout, so it's not really very long on technical specs.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_LunarRover2.html

^Edit:
I'm aware that the onus is not, um, on us to provide the numbers, but I was getting a little tired of the sound of beating this particular dead horse.

400lb for each astronaut? That's 2kN. More than enough for an astronaut in Earth gravity, who would probably weigh no more than 1kN.

[Zakalwe]

The biggest criticism I would have of the test is that they don't start on the loose surface. Why not? that is the most obvious test for traction.

Do you really believe that this was the only test that they did before sending it to the Moon?

I live in a very sandy area and if I want to drive my 2wd over a sandy area that is a bit dodgy the way to do it is to get a bit of a run up and don't, under any circumstances, stop.

So what?
The relevance to where you live to a Lunar Rover is what exactly?

My 2wd is not suitable for sandy terrain yet it would pass that test.

Again, so what?
The relevance of your ICE vehicle to a Lunar Rover is what exactly??

To be honest, looking at that car bouncing around on that relatively smooth surface, at relatively slow speeds, I can't see how anyone could have confidence to drive at much higher speeds over much worse terrain, and, when only one person is on board

Appeal to incredulity.
The problem is with how you see things and not with the Lunar Rover program.

in a significantly unbalanced vehicle.

Why on Earth do you think that it's unbalanced?
Its got a low CoG, a wide wheeltrack and a relatively long wheelbase. All the components of a very balanced vehicle.

And, they seemingly have to have have a run up to help the vehicles across the test bed.

So what?
Do you know what was being tested in that particular test? Do you really think that they test the whole thing at once?? Come to think of it, what exactly is your experience in testing? In engineering? In vehicle design? In space-related industries?

Thanks for posting it though, and I will take the time to look at the whole rover series later when I am at a better computer.
I am a bit stretched for time but I will address a some other comments later.

Excuse me?? Your "research" is based on YouTube segments of poplar science TV shows?? Do yourself (and us) a favour and do some proper research before you come here spouting rubbish hoax theories.
Here's a good place to start:
Nasa Technical Reports Server

[Zakalwe]

Wonder if there have been any 2 wheel drive entrants in the Dakar Rally? Genuinely, I do not know. But it is a bit different to using your car on a bit of sand where you live compared to the Moon.

The Dakar Aggressor. A rear-engined, V8, 2WD car. It finished 35th place out of the 161 starters in the 2013 rally.

I assume that Anywho can realise that there may be some differences between his 2WD commuter car (designed for comfort, reliability, cheapness, long service intervals, market-place) and a 2WD vehicle designed for a single purpose??? I wonder why he/she cannot make the same mental leap to assume that there may be one or two differences between the performance of his/her car and the LRV??

[darren r]

Is it just me, or do these two statements crop up a lot in HB's posts :

"I've got a really crap computer so I can't access the information you've given me right now."

"I lead a really busy life so I'll come back and address your comments later."

Stalling for time much?

[Zakalwe]

Is it just me, or do these two statements crop up a lot in HB's posts :

"I've got a really crap computer so I can't access the information you've given me right now."

"I lead a really busy life so I'll come back and address your comments later."

Stalling for time much?

Yep. From computers that won't play sound, that keeps crashing, that won't allow quotations, that won't run graphics programs, that can't download from the Internet.....
Collectively the HB community must hold the world's repository of crappy PCs.

[anywho]

The biggest criticism I would have of the test is that they don't start on the loose surface. Why not? that is the most obvious test for traction.

Do you really believe that this was the only test that they did before sending it to the Moon?

Well, just in case you haven't been following the thread my position is that they didn't send it to the moon

It's the only test they show, and who's position does it support?

It is a farcical test which tests nothing, not braking, not steering, not acceleration, and the only way it tests traction at all is in a way that is designed not to fail, ie: take a run up on a solid surface and see if you can keep going in a straight line over short test bed.

Admittedly, that test doesn't prove they didn't, and couldn't, go 4WDriving in 1/6g on the moon, but it is certainly more indicative of a farce than it is of serious testing, and the limited results that can be seen would support my position also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FVMfjPXwRO4#t=124s

To everyone who says that the rovers had a low center of gravity, what are you comparing it to, a truck? The chassis height is comparable to a family car, and that is without considering the one or two 400lb gorillas sitting high up on a lightweight 460lb vehicle.
 

[Andromeda]

Anywho, do yourself a favour and read this book before you come back again:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lunar-Rover-Manual-Technology-Development/dp/0857332678/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363606263&sr=8-1

Also, watch this DVD:
http://www.spacecraftfilms.com/apollo15manmustexplore.aspx

Again you are arguing from personal incredulity, and we are still waiting for the numbers we asked for.

[Jason Thompson]

It's the only test they show, and who's position does it support?

It's the only test an episode of a TV show that condensed down the entire development and operation of the rover into one hour showed.  The question was if you think it was the only test they did. Do you expect all the test footage to just drop into your lap? 

The chassis height is comparable to a family car, and that is without considering the one or two 400lb gorillas sitting high up on a lightweight 460lb vehicle.

And unlike a family car it has no bodywork over the chassis, and doesn't have a large engine block sitting above the axles at one end. Compared to a family car it does have a low centre of gravity, because none of the mass is involved in anything that encloses the driver and passenger.

[Jason Thompson]

Well, just in case you haven't been following the thread my position is that they didn't send it to the moon

So what is your position on what they actually did then?

[Andromeda]

Well, just in case you haven't been following the thread my position is that they didn't send it to the moon

So what is your position on what they actually did then?

Ohhhh, you had to ask....

[Tedward]

Wonder if there have been any 2 wheel drive entrants in the Dakar Rally? Genuinely, I do not know. But it is a bit different to using your car on a bit of sand where you live compared to the Moon.

The Dakar Aggressor. A rear-engined, V8, 2WD car. It finished 35th place out of the 161 starters in the 2013 rally.

Thought so, cheers. This years was in S America I think? Previous years have been through the Sahara, but there were deserts on this one as well.

[Tedward]

To everyone who says that the rovers had a low center of gravity, what are you comparing it to, a truck? The chassis height is comparable to a family car, and that is without considering the one or two 400lb gorillas sitting high up on a lightweight 460lb vehicle.

Not a field I have particularly studied (or any field for that matter, apart from ones with cows in). What are your findings with regards centre of gravity in comparison to other vehicles? What measurements do you have.

Edit To add to this. Been mulling this over. I have over the years driven many vehicles. All of the family cars sized shall we say have had certain characteristics with regards handling. Some have been like fighting jelly around corners whilst others have be OK after a fashion. But one thing a family car is not meant to do is go to the extremes that, say, a Mini could do without modification. I am talking Cooper days not BMW days. But there are ones that will do it despite the barge that holds the family. So your analogy is a bit wayward. It does not fit, it cannot fit. I expect that despite a similar height, talking family cars only here, what attached the wheels to the chassis is also important. That makes the difference between a jellymobile and a rather stable platform.