So I should study matrixing and cementation to tell me that the lunar surface is, contrary to the visual evidence presented as the lunar surface, not a loose surface?
Yes. That is how actual science and engineering is done. You don't get to look at something and conclude its physical properties simply on the basis of a bit of film footage.
The sad thing is that most here will probably agree with you that the lunar regolith does not fit into the category of a loose surface, in spite of what they can see with their own eyes, namely the dirt moving freely and easily when disturbed, along with deep footprints etc.
And what of the stuff that is uncovered by the removal of loose surface material? how does the cohesive nature of the regolith change with depth? How does it react when compressed? When I go walking on a sandy beach I kick up a lot of sand. I do not have trouble walking on it, despite leaving deep footprints and kicking up loose surface material.
I am being very honest and very objective when I characterise the lunar surface as "loose",
Rubbish. You are being entirely subjective. it looks loose to you therefore you have decided that is the sole characteristic worth mentioning and using in your argument.
any numbers can be fudged but the visual evidence is very clear
I wondered when we'd get to the attempt to dismiss the entire area of quantitiative analysis in order to bolster your argument. Again, the exact oposite of actual science and engineering.
Using basic numbers available the lunar surface ends up about as slippery as ice.
Correction: using inappropriate numbers that have no bearing on the surface or vehicle design actually involved on the Moon. You don't just get to apply a set of numbers from something you googled up to the moon and expect a bunch of professional engineers to agree with you.
Let me restate that:
professional engineers.
we must have faith
No, we must have the actual engineering data and understanding. This is NOT a matter of faith. This is a matter of actual engineering expertise. You have none, patently. Others here do, and have plenty of it.
The little boy in the story of the emperor has no clothes was completely wrong to state the obvious?
Don't try and pass yourself off as some lone voice of reason among a crowd of people deluded or deliberately avoiding the obvious. You have NO relevant understanding of the engineering required in design and construction of a lunar rover.
And we still await your explanation for what exactly is being seen in the film of the rover being operated. Clearly that vehicle CAN be sat on by one astronaut and driven around on a 'loose' surface.
So even when it is obvious for all to see that the moon has a loose surface everyone should just agree that, although we can see the dirt moving very freely with our own eyes, because the learnered kings men have said it is not loose you should not believe what you see with your own eyes?
Whenh what you can see with your own eyes on some low res video is a decent substitute for a proper analysis of the characteristics of lunar regolith including cohesiveness, compaction, response to pressure etc. then we'll give you a call.
This is like pulling teeth, can one of you please agree that the surface of the moon, as presented in the apollo footage, is a loose surface.
No. I can agree that it has a loose top layer. What happens when the movement of the wheel shifts that lose material and it begins to get a grip with the stuff under it?
