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.
No, it's a small detail because I've computed the roll stability factors for the lunar rover and I'm satisfied it was safe to operate as we saw it operate.
All I see from you is a lot of childish handwaving. Compute the roll moments and rates and critical roll angle, showing your work, and then we'll talk. Otherwise I don't see your argument as anything more than desperate question-begging.
...and that is being generous because on the moon it is loose dirt).
No, it isn't loose dirt. Study chemical cementation and physical matrixing, then revisit your estaimate. Your qualitative assumption fails, therefore the quantities you estimated based on that also fail.
http://www.saltflats.com/traction.html
Interesting link. Look at my nick and guess where I race. You
really don't know what you're talking about. Oddly enough we also get chemical cementation out at Bonneville. That's why I have to hose off my street car after I drive out to the speedway.
..when one astronaut is on board approx 3/4 of the weight is on one side of the vehicle, so yes, it is a very unbalanced vehicle especially for the moon where, once again, it is many times easier to roll a vehicle than on earth.
Compute the roll moment/rate or no dice. I'm an engineer. Show me your numbers or go home.
Traction on a loose surface on the moon will be similar to ice on earth
Disagree.
It is many times easier to roll a vehicle on the moon than the earth
Compute the roll moment/rate for a vehicle on Earth and the same vehicle, identically loaded, on the Moon. Show me the difference between the two numbers; don't just tell me your guesses for how they relate.
There are no groomed roads on the moon and the driving surface was at times very uneven...
I agree there are no groomed roads. I agree that the surface was "uneven," but you have failed to quantify the surface variation (or even intimate that you know how such factors are commonly described). You seem to expect that agreement here is a stipulation that the LRV was improbable. I do not so stipulate: if you claim the LRV cannot have handled the "uneven" terrain, then you have the burden of proof. Waving your hands is not proof.
A balanced vehicle has, by definition, the weight relatively well balanced, ergo, a vehicle with 3/4 the weight on one side is unbalanced.
I do not agree with this definition of balanced vehicle. I do not agree with the conclusion you've drawn. The science of vehicle stability is well-established and employs several models to help engineers reason about vehicle designs. Your ignorance of them and reluctance to employ any of them is not a substitute for proper knowledge. Your willingness to draw a conclusion without investigating proper reasoning suggests you are not interested in whether your claim is true.
On the moon where it is many times easier to roll a vehicle having a balanced vehicle would be significantly more important than on earth.
This is a complex question fallacy because you have included a premise in the proposition to which I do not agree. I agree that any vehicle must be appropriately engineered for its purpose. Proper engineering for a wheeled vehicle requires a proper quantification of stability relative to its intended operating environment. You have argued that the LRV is not engineered for its purpose. You have failed to demonstrate a working understanding of the environment and a working knowledge of engineering principles. You have not even attempted to make an engineering argument. While you allude to engineering factors, you cannot discuss them with any competency.
How would "common sense" suggest we respond to a proponent who simply demands we believe him without being able to give a proper reason?
