Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

[Captain Swoop]

Think of a Railway Locomotive.

For example a British Rail Standard 9F steam loco.
It had a total weight of about 150 tons

It had 10 coupled wheels (5 each side) It's axle weight was 15 tons on each wheel
It was capable of pulling up to 1000 tons.
They pulled coal trains of this weight up a 1 in 40 incline from the Riverside on the Tyne up to the high level main lines every day.
Accorfing to your 'calculations' it shouldn't have been able to move at all.

[Glom]

May that's why Wrexham and Shropshire failed. Their loco hauled trains violated the laws of physics.

[JayUtah]

I'm just catching up on this thread and I was hoping someone would mention railroading, locomotives, and tractive effort.  Anywho, you're really in over your head on this topic.  If you want to change tack and humbly ask for help, I'm sure we would be able to provide it.  But as long as you're just going to arrogantly stumble through a wrong-headed misconception of basic physics and call the world's engineering community liars, I think laughter is probably all you're going to get.

[Andromeda]

And I'm getting kinda tired of being ignored.

[smartcooky]

Think of a Railway Locomotive.

For example a British Rail Standard 9F steam loco.
It had a total weight of about 150 tons

It had 10 coupled wheels (5 each side) It's axle weight was 15 tons on each wheel
It was capable of pulling up to 1000 tons.
They pulled coal trains of this weight up a 1 in 40 incline from the Riverside on the Tyne up to the high level main lines every day.
Accorfing to your 'calculations' it shouldn't have been able to move at all.

....and as per anywho's assertion, each wheel is pulling 115 tons (760% if its borne weight), and its doing so up a 1:40 incline with steel wheels on steel rails!!!!

[Noldi400]

And I'm getting kinda tired of being ignored.

It seems to come with the territory.

What never ceases to amaze - although not surprise - me is the way most of the HB crowd finds consistency to be a reason for suspicion.

If an HB poses a question, and I happen to be the one who answers it, as often as not the response is something like "Boy, you NASA shills really got yur script memorized. That's the same answer I got form Able on another video and even some PAN over on cosmokwest. Why don't u open yr eyes and stop being a sheeple, retard"

It doesn't seem to matter whether it's the missing stars, or RADIATION, or slow-motion lunar  gravity, they mostly just ask the same old tired questions.  I guess they're hoping for just one 'Apollogist' to agree with them so they can bray "i wuz rite! AH AH AH AH!"

[Allan F]

"i wuz rite! AH AH AH AH!"

I see you met expattafy1 on youtube. That's his signature.

[Captain Swoop]

Think of a Railway Locomotive.

For example a British Rail Standard 9F steam loco.
It had a total weight of about 150 tons

It had 10 coupled wheels (5 each side) It's axle weight was 15 tons on each wheel
It was capable of pulling up to 1000 tons.
They pulled coal trains of this weight up a 1 in 40 incline from the Riverside on the Tyne up to the high level main lines every day.
Accorfing to your 'calculations' it shouldn't have been able to move at all.

....and as per anywho's assertion, each wheel is pulling 115 tons (760% if its borne weight), and its doing so up a 1:40 incline with steel wheels on steel rails!!!!

More to the point the 9F has 10 driving wheels to spread the load and lower the axle weight so it doesn't damage the track. A single axle would have 75 tons on each wheel. At the same time as lowering the weight on each wheel it increases the contact area the loco has with the rails to stop them slipping when trying to pull away.

[twik]

I presume that anywho's position is that the videos show the rovers actually working under Earth gravity (despite being described as not able to do so), while the disturbed dust ... operates under Moon gravity in its behaviour. Neat trick, that.

[Noldi400]

"i wuz rite! AH AH AH AH!"

I see you met expattafy1 on youtube. That's his signature.

Oh, yeah. Known of him for a while.

[Nowhere Man]

You are still not understanding the difference between weight and mass. You obviously do know that an object in a 1G field with a mass of 100kg has a weight of 100kg, while that same object in a 1/6th G field, while only weighing 16kg, nevertheless still has a mass of 100kg.

I've pointed this out before.  Kilogram is a unit of mass, never a unit of weight.  In SI, weight is newtons, and the weight of a mass depends on the gravity field in which it's measured.

On Earth, 100 kg weighs about 981 N.  On the Moon, it weighs about 162 newtons.

A mistake like yours could cost you a grade in physics class.

Fred

[Nowhere Man]

A 600lb vehicle on earth weighs 600lbs and has a mass of 600lbs, on the moon it weighs 100lbs but still has a mass of 600lbs.

Same problem as my last post.  Now it's in English units and weights.

The English unit of mass is the slug.  1 slug is 14.6 kg.  You can take it from there.

Fred

[gillianren]

And I'm getting kinda tired of being ignored.

What?

But seriously, the simpler the question, the less likely he is to answer it.

[RAF]

Yes, although technically the army conducted the test, for NASA.

So NASA had the Army conduct tests that showed the landings were faked, and you're the first person to "figure it out"??

Is that the reason for the "tude"...you believe yourself superiour to those who disagree with you??

[smartcooky]

You are still not understanding the difference between weight and mass. You obviously do know that an object in a 1G field with a mass of 100kg has a weight of 100kg, while that same object in a 1/6th G field, while only weighing 16kg, nevertheless still has a mass of 100kg.

I've pointed this out before.  Kilogram is a unit of mass, never a unit of weight.  In SI, weight is newtons, and the weight of a mass depends on the gravity field in which it's measured.

On Earth, 100 kg weighs about 981 N.  On the Moon, it weighs about 162 newtons.

A mistake like yours could cost you a grade in physics class.

Fred

Actually, the Newton is a measure of force not a measure of weight (F = ma)

For simplicity's sake, using kg as weight will suffice for nomenclature.

Besides, I have yet to find a set of bathroom scales, a set of kitchen scales, or a laboratory balance kit with its weights calibrated or marked in "Newtons"!!

When someone asks me how much I weigh, I never answer 747.56 newtons!!

The fact is that an object of 100 kg mass, weighs 100 kg on the Earth because it is in a 1G field

W = mg  ... 100 x 1 = 100

and in the lunar gravity its weight is 16.7 kg

W = mg ... 100 x 0.167 = 16.7 (disregarding mascons of course!!)