Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

[Zakalwe]

It's the only test they show

Who exactly are "they"? And please evidence that this short video clip is the "only test". I showed you a link to tens, if not hundreds, of highly detailed documents relating to the LRV....did you even bother to look at one of them?
In reality, the true translation of your sentence is "I didn't do ANY research, just posted a load of supposition, nonsense, and personal beliefs based on incredulity onto a board that is full of people that know their stuff, professional engineers and people that actually work in this field".

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.

Again, how do you know what is being tested (or indeed demonstrated) in that short clip?
I am also waiting for you to detail what makes you qualified to claim the test as farcical. What are your qualifications? Do you have an recognised experience in engineering? Space industries? Vehicle design?

The chassis height is comparable to a family car,

Again, so what?

without considering the one or two 400lb gorillas

Save your personal insults for people who are in the room to defend them. All you re doing is showing that you have a personal axe to grind and that you have to reduce the conversation to the level of a street brawl.

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.

And again, your position is that it was faked. Yet you have offered nothing of substance to support that claim. What you have done is shown a belief system that is based on incredulity and ignorance. Did you even pay a cursory glance at the reports that I linked to in my other post?
You have shown no calculations to support your claims. You have displayed no knowledge of the design, construction and testing of the LRV. You have provided no evidence of your qualifications or experience in any field that would add any credence to your hypothesis. You have provided nothing other than personal observations of a YouTube video and your own erroneous conclusions based on driving your personal car.

Do you know what a house of cards is?

[Zakalwe]

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.

Yes, Lima to Santiago

[Noldi400]

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.

Uhhh... the weight/force conversion always leaves me a little confused.  The AL7B suit used on Apollo 15-17 are listed at 96 kg (212 lbs) total earth weight, which would leave 85 kg (188 lbs) for the astronaut which seems reasonable.  I don't quite understand your question - do the numbers seem off to you?

[JayUtah]

Do I really need numbers to say that if the astronauts, in jumping onto the rover, clear the rover by 6 inches on the moon then the forces on the rover will be the same as a fall onto the rover of 1inch here on earth?

Do I need numbers to say that a fall from 1inch puts more stress on the frame than the static weight weight of an astronaut?

It's basic physics and common sense (although, admittedly, for most people, myself included, it does take a bit of time to stop thinking of weight and instead think in terms of mass)

I'm an engineer, so yes you do need numbers if I'm going to pay attention to your argument.  Don't talk to me about "basic physics" unless you're going to start there and show your work all the way up to your final answer.  Don't talk to me about "common sense" while you're contradicting the world's engineering community.

[gillianren]

Allow me to repeate my question, which seems to have gotten missed somewhere.  Anywho, what research did you do?  Exactly?  What books have you read?  Websites?  Manuals? 

Note that I'm asking about reading.  That's the important kind of research, and if you didn't do any reading, you didn't do any research.  There's a right way and a wrong way to go about this; kindly prove that you've done it the right way.

[nomuse]

All I've found after an EXTREMELY short search is the thing was called the Lunar Motorcycle and was considered as an option for Apollo 15 if the Rover didn't get shipped in time for the flight.  The one pic I saw is the one that shows up a lot, and is very much in the vomit comet (presumably trying to simulate 1/6 g) and shows a man in pressure suit or mock-up thereof sitting on the bike and a couple of handlers beside him.

Just to throw in my own totally-apocryphal-and-boy-how-did-I-ever-survive-to-reach-thirty I used to take my Mustang II out on the sandy dirt fire trails of North Carolina, around the military base I was stationed at.  Somewhere above thirty MPH I'd lose direct traction, and after that it felt more like using the rudders on a boat...basically planning along.  Could still keep it slithering down more-or-less the middle of the road up to seventy or so.  Like I said, I dunno how I ever reached thirty!  On the other hand, Mustang was low, study suspension, and I could do a controlled slide on dry road (even -- shudder -- did that once to PARALLEL PARK it.)

In my partial defense, at the time the government was paying me to walk out of airplanes.  While they were still in the air.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Absolutely, but we are often told the astronauts cannot even sit on the rovers here on earth, but they can jump rather clumsily onto them on the moon. They wouldn't possible be able to jump onto them on earth fully suited so when people say the rovers can't withstand being sat on here on earth they cannot be referring to the astronauts, fully suited, trying to jump onto them.

You are aware that the suits worn by Apollos 15 to 17 were

given the designation "A7LB" by NASA,[6] the new suit incorporated two new joints at the neck and waist. The waist joint was added to allow the astronaut to sit on the LRV and the neck joint was to provide additional visibility while driving the LRV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo/Skylab_A7L#Apollo_15-17

[RAF]

... 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.

Please provide evidence (not opinion) that the rovers could not operate under Lunar conditions, or retract that claim.

[ka9q]

Basically, the position seems to be, as it so often is:

"I believe the US government is an unmitigated, monolithic evil that could never do anything constructive. And since the Apollo missions conflict with this belief I don't want to accept that they were real no matter how much evidence may exist for them.

So I'm going to focus on this one small detail that I don't understand and demand that you prove it to me without my having to evaluate any evidence or accept the judgment of those who actually know this stuff. And should you still succeed in doing so, I'll just pick something else to complain about."

[Allan F]

Basically, the position seems to be, as it so often is:

"Despite the mountain of evidence for their reality, for various ideological reasons I don't want to believe the Apollo missions happened. So I'm going to focus on this one small detail that I don't understand and demand that you prove it to me without my having to evaluate any evidence or accept the judgment of those who actually know this stuff. And should you still succeed in doing so, I'll just pick something else to complain about."

Nicely put. May I steal that?

[ka9q]

Sure, or you could use my just-expanded version.

I'm open to any suggestions on how to boil this down to its most succinct form. (I tend to be a little wordy sometimes...)

[Noldi400]

Basically, the position seems to be, as it so often is:

"I believe the US government is an unmitigated, monolithic evil that could never do anything constructive. And since the Apollo missions conflict with this belief I don't want to accept that they were real no matter how much evidence may exist for them.

So I'm going to focus on this one small detail that I don't understand and demand that you prove it to me without my having to evaluate any evidence or accept the judgment of those who actually know this stuff. And should you still succeed in doing so, I'll just pick something else to complain about."

I'm open to any suggestions on how to boil this down to its most succinct form. (I tend to be a little wordy sometimes...)

Blue pencil in hand, just for shiggles:

"So I'm going to focus on this one small detail that I don't understand and demand that[.] you p [P]rove it[;] to me without my having to evaluate any evidence or accept the judgment of those who actually know this stuff. And should you still succeed in doing so, I'll just pick something else[.] to complain about."

There. I think that's the Reader's Digest version.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

I expect to see a flounce in the next 24 hours. Don't disappoint me anywho!

[Zakalwe]

I expect to see a flounce in the next 24 hours. Don't disappoint me anywho!

Even odds on a stealth flounce...

[Noldi400]

Bo bets here. He surprised me by sticking around this long - I had thought of him as sort of a circling seagull.