The drawing a few pages back references specifically to the acceptable CoG for a LRV with TWO astronauts. What is the acceptable CoG for a LRV with ONE astronaut?
Noldi400 beat me to the punch, but the document you reference already contains expected performance deviation for operational considerations outside the nominal envelope. I tried to have a discussion with you about what these envelopes mean, but you just accused me and others of being "difficult." You quote nominal c.g. envelopes as if they were some hard-and-fast limit to what can be done. It's especially disingenuous that if you had actually read the document you quoted, you likely would have come to the realization that the LRV
can indeed be suitably operated outside those envelopes given certain accommodations, even if you didn't understand the details. If the document gives peformance data for the three major LRV configurations, why would you say they weren't studied or tested? If the document provides graphs telling you how performance degrades if the c.g. is eccentrically located, or if speed or slope are out of nominal ranges, then why would you suggest the vehicle cannot be operated under those conditions?
Your whole notion of "allowable envelope" is naive. There is the
nominal envelope and then there is a less well defined degradation of performance. If your hoax theory depends on the assumption of hard-and-fast limits, beyond which operation is impossible, then you're out of luck.
This is why I posed the question as to whether the rovers were ever actually designed for one astronaut.
Yes, it was a specific design requirement. The LRV had to be able to operate either with up to 100 pounds-mass of equipment plus two astronauts at 370 pounds-mass each, or one astronaut plus up to 470 pounds-mass of cargo -- and up to 70 pounds-mass of accumulated samples in both configurations. (
Lunar Roving Vehicle Statement of Work. Doc. RFP#1L-LRV-1. Huntsville, Ala. (MSFC). July 3, 1969. p. 15)
However, you've been asserting ever since your arrival here that a one-occupant LRV was too badly "unbalanced" to be used as depicted. This was before you did any appreciable research, performed any computation, or indeed investigated the problem with any sort of rigor. Now you're trying to backfill your predetermined belief by trumped-up accusations of missing requirements and performance data and continued handwaving attempts at vehicle engineering. You don't seem to entertain the possibility that all the word's engineers might be right after all and you, fumbling as you go, might be wrong.
What in the debriefing refutes the two valid links I supplied?
"[transcribing John Young] I didn't get up to any great speed, maybe 10 clicks at the most, but the terrain was too rough and too rocky for that kind of foolishness." (
Apollo 16 Technical Crew Briefing. Houston, Tex. (MSC). May 5, 1972. p. 10-59) While Young's top speed may have been 10 km/h, we know his typical speed in the Grand Prix was much less. We take Young at his word when he reports the top speed reached as 10 km/h, but we note that later in the debrief he admits being unable to accurately estimate speeds between 7 and 10 km/h by eye, and that he didn't have his eye on the speedo very often.
We can also photographically (i.e., photogrammetrically) reconstruct the two out-and-back jaunts Young did on the film. We know the film speed and we know key LRV dimensions, so we can determine how far he went and how long it took him to get there. The average speeds of his out-and-back trips are in the 7-8 km/h range, if I recall correctly.
Finally, item B on the commander's EVA checklist for the Grand Prix instructs him to call out his maximum speed. Why? Because the three goals of the Grand Prix were to test max acceleration, extreme steering, and max braking. To test max acceleration you accelerate flat-out from a standing stop in a straight line until you get to the fastest speed you're comfortable with, and then call it out. This is what Young did. The time (as recorded by the film) and the highest speed reached give acceleration. But the steering and braking tests weren't conducted at full speed, or indeed at any designated speed. So Young's stability and braking tests took place at much lower speeds. He did two rounds of this. To insinuate that the Grand Prix was recklessly conducted at excessive speeds is simply incorrect.
One which is the speed limit set at 8.5kph over rough mare...
No. First, "rough mare" is defined in Exhibit 1 of the SOW. Young's "rough and rocky" comment notwithstanding, you may not substitute your personal interpretation of it. Stanley Kaufman at Bell Labs did the mathematical modeling of terrain and established those breakpoints based on modeled vehicle performance. They are criteria that relate to how the vehicle actually behaves differently due to terrain, not some eyeball or wishful-thinking estimate.
Second, the table from which you quote "top" speeds is qualified, not absolute. You may not disregard the qualifications. The contract top speed for flat and level terrain was 16 km/h. According to your table the "top speed" was 13 km/h for flat and level terrain. So how did Boeing get away with delivering a vehicle that didn't meet specifications? The answer is that the results Boeing publishes here are not "top speeds." They're
recommended speeds,
given certain conditions and additional requirements. That's the qualification.
The specific qualification here is astronaut fatigue. You have to hold on, and the Apollo 15 crew discovered that the faster you go for long periods, the more fatiguing it is to hold on tight enough. Going slower reduces the fatigue of riding. The recommended speeds beginning with Apollo 16 are for sustained travel, where fatigue becomes a factor. For a ten-second acceleration test, the cruise-speed recommendations are irrelevant.
...and one which says they went 10kph over what is obviously rough mare...
I know Eric Jones (the ALSJ author) and I'm sure I can convince him to forgive you for misinterpreting his narration. He merely quotes the estimate of momentary top speed provided by the crew, not some imaginary sustained speed.
...and with one astronaut so the CoG is outside the acceptable envelope.
Outside the
nominal envelope. Do not impose your interpretation or layman's notion of requirements. And you have provided no correct computation for where the one-occupant c.g. would be, so you have no basis for the premise that the c.g. was outside any sort of envelope.
