Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

[Glom]

Then show it. Show your calculations to demonstrate that under the driving we see, it was at high risk of toppling.

[Abaddon]

It looks stable for earth but you have to consider that it is many times easier to roll on the moon,

Is it?

and that the rovers are very lightweight with drivers that are very heavy (comparatively).

Are they?

We are used to seeing vehicles that weigh a few thousand pound with drivers that weigh a few hundred so in that way these don't "look" too unstable.

Are they? Looks to me that you are long on assertion, short on evidence.

But in this case the rovers weigh 460lbs and the astronauts weigh 400lbs, with one driver on that is 3/4 the weight off to one side, this is extraordinary,

The environment on the moon is extraordinary, And?

it would be the equivalent of having 10 blokes sitting on the one side of a normal earth vehicle, or 5 if you have a fiat bambina.

Would it? you have yet to demonstrate that.

Would that still look stable to you?

The evidence to date is that it is stable. You cannot present anything beyond your unreasonable expectations.

Adding to that very abnormal imbalance is the fact that the ground is very uneven, and as said earlier, it is many times easier to roll a vehicle on the moon. How many times easier it is to roll would depend on the degree of the slope hit but I would suggest 3or 4 times easier to roll would not be unreasonable.

How many times slower did they drive?

If you ended up going sideways on the slippery and uneven surface I think it would be a straight 6 times easier to roll, or at least I can't see why it wouldn't be.

Not if you drive slow, like the astronauts did.

[onebigmonkey]

You're mixing up your balance of forces between Earth and moon again.

The forces on the moon are proportionately less for everything - including the the force that would act on a vehicle to cause it to roll.

It is exactly as likely to topple on a lunar slope as on a terrestrial one. To counter this they came up with this totally wild and crazy idea: they didn't drive it on steep slopes.

Your suggestion that the ground was very bumpy is completely contradicted by the facts -  check the photos.

[anywho]

A comparative statement that is meaningless unless you can show how easy it would be to roll the rover on Earth. It is low, flat and has no weight of bodywork.

Once again "low" compared to what, a truck? Why do you people keep saying it is low as though it is some kind of go-cart or something, it is an off road vehicle and needs the clearances all off road vehicles need.

The "weight of no body work" comment is a joke, it weighs 460lbs and has an astronaut sitting up high on it that weighs 400lbs, this would certainly lift the center of gravity higher than the bodywork does on a normal earth vehicle.

No, because you have no characterised the lunar surface beyond 'loose dirt'. You have taken no account of the cohesive qualities of the regolith, nor of the type of wheel the rover used, which was flexible and a wire mesh, providing much more interaction with that dirt.

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

[Noldi400]

To you guys 1/6g is only a small detail that has to be overcome because you see, and believe, the rovers hooning around with no traction problems and not even looking like rolling is a possibility, so driving in 1/6 is all just fun with one of you even mentioning the "dukes of hazard" yeehaa.

You seem to think that the LRV was just some kind of modified "dune buggy". On the contrary, it was a complex, purpose built machine with very specific requirements for its operation. A very short web search should turn up the LRV Operations Handbook, which goes into very tedious detail how the LRV should be loaded, powered up, driven, parked, and anything else it was expected to do. The astronauts spent a considerable number of hours in trainers practicing LRV operation.

In fact, each LRV was fitted to the specific astronauts that would be operating it to make sure that seats, footrests, controls, etc. would be in the correct positions. 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.



As far as center of gravity goes, there were very specific loading requirements for the vehicle. Here's a diagram from the LRV Ops Handbook showing the allowable range for the CoG.



I hate to keep hammering this point, but it seems to be one that's chronically overlook by the Hoax Believers: These machines and devices were not just casually thrown together; they were the result of thousands of hours of work by people who were the best at what they did, based on the best research they had available, which by the time the LRVs were used was considerable.

[anywho]

You're mixing up your balance of forces between Earth and moon again.

The forces on the moon are proportionately less for everything - including the the force that would act on a vehicle to cause it to roll.

The mass is not proportionately less.

Consider that the vehicles still have the same mass being thrashed around but on have 1/6 the weight anchoring it to the ground.

Or consider that if the vehicle hits a bump on one side then that side of the rover will rise up many times higher than on earth so therefore it would take significantly less to roll on the moon.

Your suggestion that the ground was very bumpy is completely contradicted by the facts -  check the photos.

[Tedward]

Still no workings out yet or definitive work? Highlight the text in your work and Control C then Control V to paste it in. Easy.

From one experience in one car I will draw the conlusion that all cars are inherently un stable. This seems to be close to your approach?

I know different cars act differently and this one was built for one place. I need to see more than a gut feeling.

[Jason Thompson]

It looks stable for earth but you have to consider that it is many times easier to roll on the moon,

How much easier? Is it at all possible to roll the rover on Earth at its top speed? Numbers are needed, no matter how many times you avoid them.

Would that still look stable to you?

How it looks is irrelevant. Plans of the rover are readily available. You should be able to calculate where its centre of mass is unladen, with one or with two astronauts on it. Why don't you do that and then show what angle it would need to tip to before it will roll.

How many times easier it is to roll would depend on the degree of the slope hit but I would suggest 3or 4 times easier to roll would not be unreasonable.

And I for one don't care what you think would be 'reasonable'. Show your working. This is an engineering issue, and you cannot solve engineering issues without numbers. If you don't know the numbers you can't draw conclusions just because something 'looks' unstable to you.

[Jason Thompson]

The "weight of no body work" comment is a joke, it weighs 460lbs and has an astronaut sitting up high on it that weighs 400lbs, this would certainly lift the center of gravity higher than the bodywork does on a normal earth vehicle.

One astronaut is about 200 lb. 400 lb is the combined weight of two of them. *

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

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.

* Note I was corrected on this further down. I leave the mistake here, though, as it illustrates that we do make them now and again, and don't mind being corrected when they are pointed out.

[Jason Thompson]

Or consider that if the vehicle hits a bump on one side then that side of the rover will rise up many times higher than on earth

So, accounting for the suspension systems and the speed the rover is going, how high would the rover lift on Earth?

You keep saying something would be many times higher on the Moon, but can't provide the basis for comparison you need to make your point. Why?

I can say it would be many times easier for me to lift a 200 lb astronaut, a 460 lb rover or a two tone car on the Moon than it would be on Earth, but since I can't lift any of those on Earth that doesn't mean anything. So it is with your argument. You can't offer comparative arguments with no baseline.

[Allan F]

One astronaut is about 200 lb. 400 lb is the combined weight of two of them.

Err - no. One astronaut with PLSS had a mass close to 400 lb. The suit and PLSS alone was 95 kg.

[Jason Thompson]

Ah yes, you're right. I stand corrected.

[gwiz]

Consider that the vehicles still have the same mass being thrashed around but on have 1/6 the weight anchoring it to the ground.

The roll-causing sideways force between the wheel and the ground is proportional to weight, so also 1/6.

[Zakalwe]

Once again "low" compared to what, a truck? Why do you people keep saying it is low as though it is some kind of go-cart or something, it is an off road vehicle and needs the clearances all off road vehicles need.

The "weight of no body work" comment is a joke, it weighs 460lbs and has an astronaut sitting up high on it that weighs 400lbs, this would certainly lift the center of gravity higher than the bodywork does on a normal earth vehicle.
It is the flat smooth chevrons that are the main part interacting with the regolith, not the wire mesh.

Once again, Anywho, all you are doing is thrashing around, basing your viewpoint on nothing more than supposition and your understanding of commonsense. You clearly have no qualifications, skill or experience in any of what you are talking about (if you did, you wouldn't be making the basic mistakes that you are making, and you would have replied to the repeated questions asking you to supply evidence of the qualifications).

So, given that you are completely lost with this subject then perhaps a change of tack is required? Instead of going "Its all a fake because the LRV couldn't possibly work", why don't you try something along the lines of "Guys, I do not understand the mechanics of how this works. Here's a list of the things that I have researched, but still cannot grasp. Could you please help me with them?". In my experience, people tend to go to great lengths to help others learn, as long as the desire to learn is there.

I assume that you won't do this and I can only suppose at the reasons. I guess that your reasons for taking the approach that you have taken may include:

• I have a personal axe to grind
• I don't want to admit to myself that my knowledge and abilities are not enough to work this stuff out
• I am too lazy to do any research even when pointed at sources of the information that could help me
• I don't want to admit to myself that others have more skill than me
• I cannot allow myself to admit that I might be wrong (which is probably why I am not learning)
• Hey! I am a man of the world. I know everything that there is to know. My guesses and stabs in the dark are no match for your puny degrees and years of experience

Am I near to the mark?

And again, just in case you missed these the last two times:
What is your experience in the field of testing?
What are your qualifications in engineering? Vehicle design?
Have you read any of the documents that I linked to? If so, then please point out exactly where you disagree with them and provide your calculations that led you to that disagreement.

I wait with bated breath*







*no I don't because you will ignore this.

[Zakalwe]

Or consider that if the vehicle hits a bump on one side then that side of the rover will rise up many times higher than on earth so therefore it would take significantly less to roll on the moon.

The vehicle had suspension (double wishbone and the deflection of the tyres), designed to cope with bump absorption. You do know how suspension works, right? If you do, then you will know that vehicle suspension is designed to work in the vehicle's range of speed (0-14Km/h). Do you not realise that the manufacturer will have specified the maximum impact that the suspension could cope with?

it would take significantly less to roll on the moon.

Why would it take less to roll?

The vehicle was designed to not roll unless the angle exceeded 45⁰. What size of bump and at what speed would the vehicle have to hit in order to cause the vehicle to roll? Numbers and calculations please.