Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

[Jason Thompson]

You are even more likely to end up sideways if you are driving around over slippery, uneven terrain, in an unbalanced vehicle.

Once again, anywho, more likely than what?

You keep making comparative statements without any numbers that are relevant to anything to do with the comparison. You have already been told that astronauts driving the rover reported that when they could feel the back wheels slipping out they were capable of steering to correct before they ended up sideways.

And, yes, it is unbalanced with a 400lb astronaut sitting on one side of a 460lb vehicle, and, yes, this does take it outside the designated envelope.

Designated for what? Once again you have ignored the painstakingly reiterated point that there is a difference between 'this vehicle's performance is degraded outside these parameters' and 'this vehicle cannot be operated outside these parameters'.

Why don't they pay attention to the additional rollover possibilities that occur with one astronaut?

Why don't you prove they have not done adequate testing by demonstrating some knowledge of engineering rogor and procedure? It is not inadequate simply because you say it is.

If you want to see what low gravity would really looks like, then have a look at the most valid test they did on the rovers (starts at 2.04):

That does not answer my question, and I do not accept your assertion that the test is the 'most valid'. Especially as it is plainly only 'most valid' in your eyes because it appears to you to support your predetermined conclusion: exactly the opposite of sound reasoning.

Look at it bouncing around even at very low speeds and a relatively smooth test bed,

The test bed is not 'smooth'. It is liberally peppered with small rocks, and the suspension system does exactly what it is supposed to, with the wheels responding to the rocks and the chassis not bouncing around violently at all.

look at what a farce the test is

Since you do not know the purpose and full extent of that test you may not dismiss it as a farce based on a few seconds of film.

and how they have to take a run up to even get over the test bed

Who says they 'have' to take a run up to get over the test bed? What is the test actually testing? Unless it is specifically intended to test the characteristics of the rover from a standing start, why would they not take a run up? If the test is intended to examine only the handling characteristics at 'steady state' then having them do the run up before entering the test bed is a perfectly sound piece of testing protocol.

You also assume it is a test of the rover, whereas the narration states it is actually a training aid for the astronauts to get them used to the feel of driving it in a reduced gravity environment. In that case you cannot describe it as a 'valid' test of the rover, because it is not actually any test of the rover at all, and more than the LLRV is a test of the LM.

look at how once they lose a bit of steering they can't regain control.

Show me the section where they lose control, and support your assertion. You have already told us you have no sound on your computer, so without that, what information do you actually have on the aims and outcomes of those few seconds of footage?

But hey, on the moon, with bumpier terrain, at higher speeds, and even in an unbalanced vehicle with only one astronaut on board they had no problems.

What a joke.

The joke is you and your continuing inability to demonstrate even the merest hint of an understanding of the way to discuss an engineering issue. Give us numbers and we'll have a decent discussion. Until then you will simply find your arguments dismissed as the handwaving rubbish they really are.

Now answer my question: what do you propose is actually being shown in the footage of the rover being driven on the Moon?

[Jason Thompson]

they went well outside the recommended CoG and well outside the speed limits, on the moon where any failure could be disastrous,

Please support your assertion that failure of the rover would be disastrous. Rolling over at low speed into loose regolith while wearing a spacesuit in a vehicle that both astronauts could lift between them hardly seems a disaster, compared to things like landing the LM on the Moon. Never done before, and crashing the LM was not survivable. And yet people willingly did it.

[anywho]

This will be my last post until I am out of moderation, it is just too difficult.

[JayUtah]

What a joke.

Yes it is.  You're still just waving your hands and begging the question, and proving that you really don't read the material before you shoot your mouth off.

You're not an engineer.  You're wrong.  Get over it.

[ka9q]

How can you use film of the rover driving around with one occupant to claim that it couldn't drive around with one occupant?

Easy,  actually. Remember, like any hoaxer his basic premise was that it was all faked. So whenever you confront him with evidence that refutes his beliefs, he can claim it's fake and simply wave it away. No justification is necessary.

Remember, NASA is all powerful. They have secret technology, including but not limited to CGI far beyond anything Hollywood has even today. They can violate the laws of nature at will. They know everything, including the future, and they can do anything. Except land humans on the moon, of course.

Of course, that won't stop him from using information from NASA or anyone else when he thinks it can be used to his advantage.

Basically, in the fantasy universe of the hoaxer you can "prove" whatever you want by picking and choosing -- and modifying or ignoring -- evidence any way you like. The rest of us, who have to accept empirical evidence unless we can show a good reason not to, are at a significant disadvantage.

[RAF]

Anywho, why are you ignoring the questions put to you?

I, too am curious why you can't answer this question, any...you post "what a joke", but the only humor I'm getting out of this thread is the that you still have not provided a lick of evidence for your claim that the rover was faked.

Well...here's a few related question for ya anywho...

How do you account for the 16mm video taken during the traverses between stations? (I'm specifically referring to A16) ...how was that faked?

Also, we can match "Lunar"marks (like landmarks ) seen in the traverses videos, to recent images taken from orbit.

How exactly was all that faked?

[Echnaton]

f you want to see what low gravity would really looks like, then have a look at the most valid test they did on the rovers

Care to tell us what you expertise ins in this type of testing and design that allows you to call this "the most valid test?"

You seem to have a knack for criticizing others work in an area in which you have demonstrated no knowledge.  Your lame analogies and after the fact inclusion of information brought to you in rebuttals is a pretty good indication that you haven't done any original work on the subject.  This has shown you to be yet another internet crank. 

[JayUtah]

Yep lol, the one time they specifically acknowledge one astronaut is when the rover is static, not moving, parked.

Changing horses.  You questioned whether any design work had been done for the vehicle under different loadout conditions.  It had been -- the evidence for it is in a document you imply, by citing it, that you've read.  Other evidence is in documents you were previously unaware of, yet you insisted on drawing a conclusion without that evidence, all the while insinuating that your cursory survey of the available information and your knowledge of the attendant sciences were adequate.  You don't get to rationally move on to the next handwaving conspiracy claim without conceding that you were wrong about the first.

Consider that point the next time you insinuate that just because you haven't come across something yet, it must therefore not exist.

No they don't, not fully anyhow, they evaluated it for fully loaded only.

This rejoinder fails on three points.  First, it is an argument from silence.  You may not infer from the absence of some specific, arbitrary result from this particular document that the information was not known.  Second, it is a begged question -- and one you consistently beg despite all requests to the contrary.  You may not decide based on your layman's belief and supposition that certain information is of utmost importance and then hold professionals responsible for providing it.  Third, describe how you would draw a graph consistent with those in this document, that would relate all the relevant variables.

A tripped rollover is the most common cause of rollovers...

In what environment?

And, yes, it is unbalanced with a 400lb astronaut sitting on one side of a 460lb vehicle...

Asked and answered.

...and, yes, this does take it outside the designated envelope.

You don't know what is meant by "envelope" and you keep changing your wording to dance around the fact of your ignorance.

Why don't they pay attention to the additional rollover possibilities that occur with one astronaut?

Argument from silence, along with question-begging.

If you want to see what low gravity would really looks like, then have a look at the most valid test they did on the rovers (starts at 2.04):

Dodges the question.  Are you able to explain the Grand Prix video or not, in the context of your hoax hypothesis?

Look at it bouncing around even at very low speeds and a relatively smooth test bed...

What is your evidence that this is unacceptable or out-of-tolerance behavior?

...look at what a farce the test is...

I do not accept you as an authority on engineering test methods or automotive engineering, so I do not accept your judgment about the fidelity or validity of the test.  Please make a more rigorous and/or documented argument.

...and how they have to take a run up to even get over the test bed...

Why does this matter?

look at how once they lose a bit of steering they can't regain control.

"Cannot regain control" over what time interval, and for what definition of "control?"

But hey, on the moon, with bumpier terrain, at higher speeds, and even in an unbalanced vehicle with only one astronaut on board they had no problems.

You have not quantified or discussed "bumpier terrain," nor dealt with the rebuttal to your assumption.

You have not addressed the rebuttal to your "higher speeds" claim.

You have not described "unbalanced" qualitatively, nor provided a correct quantitative assessment for your "unbalanced" claim, nor dealt with the fact that you were provided all long with stability factors based on displacement of the nominal c.g.

Since you're just repeating the same unsubstantiated claims over and over, I have little else but to believe you have absolutely no interest in learning about this subject or responding to the criticism of your hypothesis.

[LunarOrbit]

This will be my last post until I am out of moderation, it is just too difficult.

You have to earn getting onto the moderation list, and you have to earn getting off of it. If you think threatening not to post will get you off moderation faster then you obviously don't know me very well.

If you prove to me that you can have a proper two-way discussion without insulting people I will take you off the moderation list.

[Peter B]

This will be my last post until I am out of moderation, it is just too difficult.

I see Anywho has put another post onto the Naked Scientist thread linked above, including a link to the Earth-based counter-weight test of the Rover.

Anywho, consider that you've had your interpretation of the physics of driving a car on the Moon contradicted on three separate forums, two of which have plenty of scientists and engineers on them (and I assume the NS one does too). You might like to consider that it's your version of the science that's wrong, not everyone else's.

[anywho]

You have to earn getting onto the moderation list, and you have to earn getting off of it. If you think threatening not to post will get you off moderation faster then you obviously don't know me very well.

I'll see how long I can put up with the added frustration for.

If you want to see what low gravity would really looks like, then have a look at the most valid test they did on the rovers (starts at 2.04):

That does not answer my question, and I do not accept your assertion that the test is the 'most valid'. Especially as it is plainly only 'most valid' in your eyes because it appears to you to support your predetermined conclusion: exactly the opposite of sound reasoning.

This is untrue, I nominated the skid car type test as the most valid before trebor (many thanks) posted that footage, so I had nominated that as the "most valid" before I saw that the results supported my conclusion. Here is what I wrote:

...they used a scale model for testing.

A scale model reduces the mass as well as the weight so it will only test if a lightweight rover will work on earth, not 1/6g. The best testing would probably be something like a skidcar where the weight is reduced but the mass is the same, but it would be hard to make an off road version.

Anywho, consider that you've had your interpretation of the physics of driving a car on the Moon contradicted on three separate forums, two of which have plenty of scientists and engineers on them (and I assume the NS one does too). You might like to consider that it's your version of the science that's wrong, not everyone else's.

"My interpretation" is based on the physics, not some blind belief that they couldn't fake it.

The most valid experimental test results back up that 4WDrivng, on a loose surface, on the moon is nigh on impossible.

The numbers back up that a loose surface, combined with 1/6g, will be about as slippery as ice (here's a link to another set of numbers, to be dutifully ignored, that shows a gravel and dirt road having a CoF of .35 and ice as .1, so this set shows it would be worse than ice on the moon. .35/6 = .06)

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/surface-friction-conference-2005/8/docs/frictional-characteristics-roadside-grass-types.pdf

It is important to note that although the astronauts pay lip service to the slippery conditions, what we see in the actual footage is very good traction with virtually no slipping and sliding to represent treacherous conditions. Traction-wise it doesn't look any different to what would be expected on earth.

What defense will be put up against both the test and the numbers (and common sense) coinciding to tell us that 4WDiving will be virtually impossible on the moon?

I expect to be told that the lunar surface is not a loose surface but is in fact very cohesive, yet what we see in all the footage is a very loose surface moving freely beneath the astronauts feet. So Peter B, do I believe what I see with my own eyes, or do I believe what I am told to believe? Is it a loose surface or not?

I expect to be told there is something almost magical about the design of the tires, yet they have no deep tread, and have a relatively smooth shallow chevron covering 50% of the surface area. It does looks fancy though, so do we just ignore that it absolutely flies in the face of conventional design and pretend as though it holds some hidden secret to overcoming the massive traction loss under 1/6g?

[Tedward]

Its a game.

[anywho]

Hey, I just realized:

The astronauts are trying to walk around in 1/6 g.  Not only do they still have their Earthly mass, they are wearing extremely heavy packs that make them even more unbalanced.  Their boots have no more contact area than my tennis shoes, but at 1/6 g get only 1/6 the traction.  It should have been impossible for them to move.  They would have slid across the landscape like a kid on his first day at the skating pond, then toppled over with all that extra mass.

So all the EVAs are fake.

First of all, their boots had much bigger contact area than any tennis shoe you could buy - probably about 4 times the area. Secondly, the tread had big deep grooves, to improve the traction. Third, they pushed into the surface with their boots. Fourth, you confuse mass and weight (hint: the PLSS weren't heavy in lunar gravity).

Edit: Aldrin's boot prints were 13x6 inches - about 511 cm2.

Never a truer word said in jest by nomuse, which is why it got the bite it did.

Funny how a deep tread becomes important for traction when it suits.

You are dead set right nomuse, it would be a nightmare for traction when you are top heavy, on a loose surface, and only have 1/6th the traction. It's funny how popular sci-fi takes precedence over the laws of physics in all of the lunar footage.

In popular sci-fi on the moon you just have 1/6th the weight so you are free to skip around all you want, it's all good fun.

The laws of physics say you have the same mass, and once you start moving you will have the same momentum as on earth, so having 30kgs of weight on the ground when you are trying to control 180kgs would be a nightmare.

But hey, all these problems will not make for good tv, so we'll just go with the popular sci-fi version.

[Jason Thompson]

I'll see how long I can put up with the added frustration for.

No-one really cares how long you can put up with it for. You are moderated for a reason. You want to stop being moderated, start acting decently and answering questions put to you without resorting to childishness.

This is untrue, I nominated the skid car type test as the most valid before trebor (many thanks) posted that footage, so I had nominated that as the "most valid" before I saw that the results supported my conclusion. Here is what I wrote:

You also wrote that you have no sound on your computer, and you also took that one test with no idea what it was actually testing and hung your entire conclusion from it. You have yet to prive that the run up to the test bed is suspect. You have yet to prove they 'lost control'. You have yet to prive that the boundcing around is inapprorpriate or problematic.

"My interpretation" is based on the physics, not some blind belief that they couldn't fake it.

No, your interpretation is based on your limted understanding of physics, which so far seems to go to high school level at most. You are talking to people who do this stuff for a living. Why do you think all of them are wrong and your limited understanding must be right? What arrogance you must have.

The most valid experimental test

In your view. Back that up. You don't even know what that test in the footage was actually testing, or even if it was testing anything rather than, as the narration of the clip that you never heard actually states, a training aid for the astronauts to get the feel of driving the thing.

What defense will be put up against both the test and the numbers (and common sense) coinciding to tell us that 4WDiving will be virtually impossible on the moon?

You have had it explained to you repeatedly. What good would be served by going over it again? Anyone who disagrees with you is dismissed.
 

I expect to be told that the lunar surface is not a loose surface but is in fact very cohesive, yet what we see in all the footage is a very loose surface moving freely beneath the astronauts feet.

No, what we see is a top layer of loose surface with a layer of compacted, cohesive regolith under it. Kicking off some loose dust from the top to expose a decent surface underneath is what we see.

I expect to be told there is something almost magical about the design of the tires, yet they have no deep tread, and have a relatively smooth shallow chevron covering 50% of the surface area. It does looks fancy though, so do we just ignore that it absolutely flies in the face of conventional design and pretend as though it holds some hidden secret to overcoming the massive traction loss under 1/6g?

We pretend nothing. We look at the design history for that tyre, which did not actually start with the development of the rover.

[nomuse]

Hey, I just realized:

The astronauts are trying to walk around in 1/6 g.  Not only do they still have their Earthly mass, they are wearing extremely heavy packs that make them even more unbalanced.  Their boots have no more contact area than my tennis shoes, but at 1/6 g get only 1/6 the traction.  It should have been impossible for them to move.  They would have slid across the landscape like a kid on his first day at the skating pond, then toppled over with all that extra mass.

So all the EVAs are fake.

First of all, their boots had much bigger contact area than any tennis shoe you could buy - probably about 4 times the area. Secondly, the tread had big deep grooves, to improve the traction. Third, they pushed into the surface with their boots. Fourth, you confuse mass and weight (hint: the PLSS weren't heavy in lunar gravity).

Edit: Aldrin's boot prints were 13x6 inches - about 511 cm2.

Never a truer word said in jest by nomuse, which is why it got the bite it did.

Funny how a deep tread becomes important for traction when it suits.

You are dead set right nomuse, it would be a nightmare for traction when you are top heavy, on a loose surface, and only have 1/6th the traction. It's funny how popular sci-fi takes precedence over the laws of physics in all of the lunar footage.

In popular sci-fi on the moon you just have 1/6th the weight so you are free to skip around all you want, it's all good fun.

The laws of physics say you have the same mass, and once you start moving you will have the same momentum as on earth, so having 30kgs of weight on the ground when you are trying to control 180kgs would be a nightmare.

But hey, all these problems will not make for good tv, so we'll just go with the popular sci-fi version.

And yet they didn't move as described or depicted in any previous science fiction.  The closest I can think of is Tintin -- and the two-legged hop developed by Captain Haddock as he experimented with lunar locomotion is perhaps as due to his peculiar character and the inherent physical comedy as any understanding of the relevant physics.

(Nor has any FOLLOWING science fiction film managed to depict the lunar gait.  Most do not even bother to try).

Your argument is invalid.  There was no bounding across the surface, no great leaps.  The actual lunar experience was -- yes! -- careful, sliding motions, aware of stability and the interaction of mass and weight, and a few falls as well.  It was not like any popular depiction then....or since.

(In fact, to most of your companions-in-arms, the lunar motions look wrong because they AREN'T what they credulously expected from men on the Moon.  Over and over again, in fact, other hoaxies ask "Where are the giant leaps?")



Incidentally, physics is not a magic word.  It is a process.  You can't just say "physics proves it."  Physics doesn't do ANYTHING by itself.  It just sits there.  You have to USE physics to prove something...and you do so by doing, and showing, the work.  Which is mathematical.  This is the strength of the tool; that you can show by calculation that which may go against intuition.