Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

[PetersCreek]

If the Army tests really proved that the traction was insufficient, why didn't they just redesign the wheels with, say, spikes?

Indeed, that's a popular solution here in Alaska...from October to May anyway.  But they aren't strictly necessary, though.  I get by year-round with a quality set of all-season tires in spite of living on the foot of a mountain and seeing virtually no asphalt for months at a time.  Since moving into our house more than 8 years ago, there were only two occasions when I really needed studs: when the streets really were sheets of glare ice, which is in no way comparable to lunar regolith.

[Allan F]

To accelerate the rover has to find enough traction to sustain a pull of 5 times its own weight, and that is undeniable.

So when my car is on black ice, where the friction coefficient is around 0.01, it cannot move? My car weight 1700 kilos, and according to you, it has to be able exert a pulling force of 6.5 tonnes? Is that right?

On the moon f your car weighs 1700kgs then it has a mass of 10,200 kgs, so it has to find enough traction to pull 8,500kgs on top of the weght (this is not a force of 8500kgs, it is just an additional mass it has to tow)

On the moon your car would weigh only 283kgs but would still have to get enough traction to pull the 1700kgs along the black ice.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[twik]

Well, that's pretty much the bottom line, isn't it? If the test had determined that the tire/weight/motor combination was not able to meet the desired parameters, they would have gone back to the drawing board and made changes until they had a combination that worked.

Or, at least, if we assume for a moment it was faked, why would they run tests that would prove the fake wouldn't work, leave them in the public domain, and not make at least cosmetic changes that would look like they had addressed the issue?

[nomuse]

Right.  If the tests showed the LRV couldn't work, they'd fix the LRV.  If there was a giant conspiracy, then they'd falsify the results.  Or just not do the test (or tell anyone what they found.) 

So what we have is yet another bit of Cunning Dude, er.  The person with native wits and a quick read-up who manages to see what no-one, including those people actually conducting the test, managed to notice.  Good thing the Dude didn't accidentally get himself any engineering training!  That might have gotten in the way of his common sense and left him similarly unable to see the obvious.

Of course, the TEST is a bit of a Crimson Clupeidae here.  The design of the wheel isn't a state secret.  Nor is the nature of lunar soil.  Anyone is capable of making a similar empirical test, or estimating the results using long-tested engineering approximations.  And thus if there was a conspiracy, why would they tell ANYONE what the design of the wheels looked like?  Every detail you put out there makes it more likely someone will catch you up.



I mean, lets have some perspective here.  When there's a bit of wrong history in a movie or bad science in a book people don't just skip it and move on.  They tell others.  They point fingers and laugh.  They make entire blog posts and reviews and videos pointing out the stupidity of the mistake.  And it isn't like the space program gets less attention than the latest blockbuster.  Well....certainly not during the time of Apollo!

You seriously think NASA could make basic mistakes, put the information out for public consumption, and no-one would bother to take a more than cursory look at it?

[Trebor]

Right.  If the tests showed the LRV couldn't work, they'd fix the LRV.  If there was a giant conspiracy, then they'd falsify the results.  Or just not do the test (or tell anyone what they found.) 

So what we have is yet another bit of Cunning Dude, er.  The person with native wits and a quick read-up who manages to see what no-one, including those people actually conducting the test, managed to notice.  Good thing the Dude didn't accidentally get himself any engineering training!  That might have gotten in the way of his common sense and left him similarly unable to see the obvious.

Of course, the TEST is a bit of a Crimson Clupeidae here.  The design of the wheel isn't a state secret.  Nor is the nature of lunar soil.  Anyone is capable of making a similar empirical test, or estimating the results using long-tested engineering approximations.  And thus if there was a conspiracy, why would they tell ANYONE what the design of the wheels looked like?  Every detail you put out there makes it more likely someone will catch you up.



I mean, lets have some perspective here.  When there's a bit of wrong history in a movie or bad science in a book people don't just skip it and move on.  They tell others.  They point fingers and laugh.  They make entire blog posts and reviews and videos pointing out the stupidity of the mistake.  And it isn't like the space program gets less attention than the latest blockbuster.  Well....certainly not during the time of Apollo!

You seriously think NASA could make basic mistakes, put the information out for public consumption, and no-one would bother to take a more than cursory look at it?

The excuse Hunchbacked gives is that the engineers were making deliberate mistakes so that self important 'geniuses' like him could pick up on them and blow the whistle...

[AtomicDog]

Has there EVER been a case of scientific or engineering whistleblowing of this nature? Hiding evidence in public documents or film, and letting it sit around for decades until an intrepid investigator discovers it?

[Noldi400]

Right.  If the tests showed the LRV couldn't work, they'd fix the LRV.  If there was a giant conspiracy, then they'd falsify the results.  Or just not do the test (or tell anyone what they found.) 

So what we have is yet another bit of Cunning Dude, er.  The person with native wits and a quick read-up who manages to see what no-one, including those people actually conducting the test, managed to notice.  Good thing the Dude didn't accidentally get himself any engineering training!  That might have gotten in the way of his common sense and left him similarly unable to see the obvious.

Of course, the TEST is a bit of a Crimson Clupeidae here.  The design of the wheel isn't a state secret.  Nor is the nature of lunar soil.  Anyone is capable of making a similar empirical test, or estimating the results using long-tested engineering approximations.  And thus if there was a conspiracy, why would they tell ANYONE what the design of the wheels looked like?  Every detail you put out there makes it more likely someone will catch you up.



I mean, lets have some perspective here.  When there's a bit of wrong history in a movie or bad science in a book people don't just skip it and move on.  They tell others.  They point fingers and laugh.  They make entire blog posts and reviews and videos pointing out the stupidity of the mistake.  And it isn't like the space program gets less attention than the latest blockbuster.  Well....certainly not during the time of Apollo!

You seriously think NASA could make basic mistakes, put the information out for public consumption, and no-one would bother to take a more than cursory look at it?

The excuse Hunchbacked gives is that the engineers were making deliberate mistakes so that self important 'geniuses' like him could pick up on them and blow the whistle...

It's been my experience so far that, at least with the moon hoax CT, if you follow their chain of... well, logic might not be the right word, but we'll let that pass...  chain of logic, it always seems to lead into wilder and wilder absurdities.

Back-room US-USSR pacts to keep each other's hoaxes  secret - the Cold War was all a giant hoax anyway.

Reflectors were placed on the moon and almost half a ton of samples brought back by robot probes. Ignore the fact that probes with this level of capability have never been seen, before or since.

The 'hoax' was known to only a handful of people because information was kept tightly compartmentalized.

Aliens. Illuminati. And the genius who pointed out that if they took heavy digging equipment to Antarctica, it wouldn't have taken them long to dig up 850 pounds of moon rocks. 

Anyway. Similar to what nomuse said, IMHO, when you consider the amount of technical documentation, transcripts, video & photographic records, personal accounts, interviews, speeches, books written by central participants...  all of it consistent within the usual limits of human error, just the sheer volume of data all pointing to the reality of the Apollo program should be convincing in itself.

[anywho]

If the Army tests really proved that the traction was insufficient, why didn't they just redesign the wheels with, say, spikes?

They did look at using spikes, why they didn't go with them is anyones guess, perhaps they didn't look good enough, perhaps they would raise too many questions about traction on the moon and why the astronauts don't need crampons.

When it's all a sham they can choose style over substance, and lets be honest, the rover tyres make no sense at all, they are an absolute triumph of style over substance.

They have a mesh which is supposed to be the frictive surface, then they cover 50% of it with a smooth chevron, the chevron is thin so provides no notable tread, it is smooth so provides limited traction, it covers 50% of the mesh and recesses the other 50%

Worlds dumbest tyre design ever.

Well, that's pretty much the bottom line, isn't it? If the test had determined that the tire/weight/motor combination was not able to meet the desired parameters, they would have gone back to the drawing board and made changes until they had a combination that worked.

It may be impossible to make a vehicle with weight restrictions that would work on the moon, also they didn't have time for delays, also IT WAS ALL A SHAM, so why not go with a cool looking design they can hoon around in rather than something clumsy looking like a tracked vehicle?

Or, at least, if we assume for a moment it was faked, why would they run tests that would prove the fake wouldn't work, leave them in the public domain, and not make at least cosmetic changes that would look like they had addressed the issue?

These are army tests, they were told to test the wheels with the expected weight the would have on the moon, in a simulated lunar soil, and that is what they did. Simple as that.

It is entirely possible that they did not consider the implications of 1/6g above and beyond the weight difference at all, especially as it was not in their brief to go beyond testing the wheel/soil interaction.

[ka9q]

The excuse Hunchbacked gives is that the engineers were making deliberate mistakes so that self important 'geniuses' like him could pick up on them and blow the whistle...

Which is strongly reminiscent of Dr. John Nash's delusion that the Russians were sending him secret messages encoded in newspapers and magazines.

This is why, despite the entirely reasonable objections often made about diagnosing mental illness from a distance, I'm personally convinced that hunchbacked is just batshit insane. The main difference between him and John Nash is that Nash actually did good work before he became ill.

[ka9q]

When it's all a sham they can choose style over substance

Do you think you just might be able to take some time away from repeating, ad infinitum, your bare assertion that it was all faked and actually answer some questions from the people here?

Like andromeda's excellent but repeatedly ignored question to you, to wit:

What exactly are we seeing in the films and videos of the LRV operating on the moon? Do you not see the contradiction between your claim that it could not withstand operation in 1g and your claim that the films and videos were shot on the earth, not the moon?

Her questions are dozens of pages back, yet you have never given her the courtesy of a reply. Why?

[Laurel]

It may be impossible to make a vehicle with weight restrictions that would work on the moon, also they didn't have time for delays, also IT WAS ALL A SHAM, so why not go with a cool looking design they can hoon around in rather than something clumsy looking like a tracked vehicle?

So they were insistent on the LRV having a "cool looking design" but they didn't care if the LM looked like taped-together cardboard? More inconsistencies in the hoax theory.

And why haven't you answered Andromeda's question?

[anywho]

Like andromeda's excellent but repeatedly ignored question to you, to wit:

What exactly are we seeing in the films and videos of the LRV operating on the moon? Do you not see the contradiction between your claim that it could not withstand operation in 1g and your claim that the films and videos were shot on the earth, not the moon?

Her questions are dozens of pages back, yet you have never given her the courtesy of a reply. Why?

The question is not worthy of a reply, maybe you all need a sticky where the mods can explain to you that someone who thinks the apollo landings were a hoax implicitly believes the footage is faked.

As I have already sad, there is no contradiction in using the fake apollo footage, as presented, to demonstrate the apollo landng could not have taken place, as presented.

It is not me who claimed the rovers could not operate or even be sat on in 1g, it is NASA, and that is a big contradiction from NASA (not me) because the forces experienced when hitting moguls on the moon will be very similar to earth.

I am happy to say that at least one of you can figure out the bleeding obvious:

What is your alternative scenario to 'the rovers were operated on the Moon as described'?

I imagine something along the lines of the Rover in the film not being built to the Specs put out by NASA and the footage is somewhere on Earth.

This is a message board that invites people to put hoax theories forward, do you all really need it explained that a hoax believer is someone who thinks it was all faked?

[Allan F]

It is also a board where you are requested and required to use proper physics, mathematics and engineering principles to back those claims up. And answer the questions posed to you.

[onebigmonkey]

When it's all a sham they can choose style over substance, and lets be honest, the rover tyres make no sense at all, they are an absolute triumph of style over substance.

They have a mesh which is supposed to be the frictive surface, then they cover 50% of it with a smooth chevron, the chevron is thin so provides no notable tread, it is smooth so provides limited traction, it covers 50% of the mesh and recesses the other 50%

If you'd read the report properly you'd have understood that it was comparing a range of options, and the chevron design (and the edges of the chevrons will provide traction, as will the chevrons themselves - prove otherwise) providing the right balance between grip and not accumulating debris inside the mesh.

You may think the answer is beneath you, but can you enlighten us poor savages by telling us how they derived the properties for the lunar simulant, and what evidence you have that the lunar soil would not provide enough traction and the slopes were too steep.

3rd time of asking.

[AtomicDog]

Anywho, it seems to me that you thought that the Rover did produce a noticeable tread. Remember "Tracks of a Moon Rover?"