Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

[anywho]

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MOON SURFACE IS LIKE

Then you can't use that video to judge the properties of the lunar surface, as you have done.

OMG,   slowly...

I   can   use    it    to   judge   the    lunar    surface   as    presented    by    NASA

[Andromeda]

So then how do you account for the fact that the rover is shown driving on the surface you claim it cannot be driven on?

[Jason Thompson]

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MOON SURFACE IS LIKE

Then you can't use that video to judge the properties of the lunar surface, as you have done.

OMG,   slowly...

I   can   use    it    to   judge   the    lunar    surface   as    presented    by    NASA

Then you are saying it couldn't be driven on that surface on the Moon?

Then you are simply wrong. Sorry.

Now, do you plan to answer my question?

[RAF]

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MOON SURFACE IS LIKE

Then you can't use that video to judge the properties of the lunar surface, as you have done.

OMG,   slowly...

I   can   use    it    to   judge   the    lunar    surface   as    presented    by    NASA

Well, you are proceeding "as expected". First, you become frustrated that no one here agrees with you, then, you start being unreasonably sarcastic, as in the quoted post...

...if you continue along these lines, as I know you will, your posts will become more and more insulting to other posters, until you get yourself banned.

Sad and predictable...

[RAF]

...lets be honest, the rover tyres make no sense at all...

No one here cares that they make no sense to you. In the future, please don't make assumptions regarding others opinions, particularly, when those assumptions are in error...no one here agrees with you.

Worlds dumbest tyre design ever.

Your uninformed opinion is not evidence...when will you present evidence that the rovers were faked....soon?

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?

Is this how you will be proceeding? ...no evidence , just you shouting IT WAS FAKE?

Once again....not evidence...

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.

...and apparently passed those tests, OR THEY WOULD HAVE "FIXED" THE ROVER UNTIL IT DID WORK.

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.

So you make the unsupported assumption that the scientists were pretty stupid.

Sorry, but no foundation for you to make such a determination.

[RAF]

The question is not worthy of a reply...

You are mistaken. See, we have the "advantage" of knowing that Apollo was not faked. People here are showing you a "courtesy" by even responding to any of your posts.

As I posted earlier, this sort of attitude will only bring you trouble.

[RAF]

...THEY MADE A STRONGER VERSION...

You do realize that there were 1G version rovers used for Earth training, right?

[RAF]

All it represents is an actual physical test of the laughable rover wheel together with a simulated soil based on the previous fake apollo missions.

So do you believe that the TV camera from Surveyor 3 that the crew of A12 returned to Earth was a fake.

Were all Lunar missions, even the unmanned ones, faked? Just how far are you willing to go with this "lunacy".

[RAF]

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MOON SURFACE IS LIKE...

Well, that's the thing, isn't it...because you see, we do know what the Moon's surface is like from the unmanned landers.

[Jason Thompson]

Once again, to accelerate the rover wheel needs enough traction to pull 6 times the weight on it in total (a drawbar coeffciient of 5), so how would this thing accelerate n 1/6g on such a loose surface if the most it can safely accelerate with the available traction is just 40% more than its weight? 

It doesn't matter how many times you say this, it won't make it right. Drawbar pull is a measure of force. The coefficient as measured in these tests is the drawbar pull divided by the weight of the vehicle, and is relevant in slope tests because on upward gradients the rover DOES have to pull against its own weight (not its mass). On the flat it does not. This number does NOT have to match or exceed the weight or mass of the vehicle in order to move it on a level. If that were so none of the counter examples you dismiss would actually work at all.

[Jason Thompson]

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)

(emphasis mine)

So what is that extra force? How much extra force is needed to move that extra mass?

You keep talking about the 'pull coefficient' on the test. It's a ratio of force to weight. A pull coefficient of 0.5 means it is exerting a force equal to half the weight of the vehicle. Not the mass, the weight. So, a vehicle of 1000 lb with a pull coefficient of 0.5 is able to exert a force of 500 lb. A vehicle of the same weight with a pull coefficient of 5 is able to exert a 5000 lb force. In this post you claim the force does not have to equal the additional mass, but in your others you say it has to. You say the rover needs a pull coefficient of 5, so it has to be able to exert a force equal to five times its own weight. In other words, a force equal to the extra mass of the vehicle.

So which is it?

[twik]

I suspect that anywho is not a Canadian, and has never driven on ice. Even if the dust surface was "ice like" (which it was not, but he has said up front he doesn't want to be told about how the lunar particles act differently than, say, dust on a dirt road), it's still possible to drive on it. Slowly and carefully, yes, but possible.

[JayUtah]

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

...says the non-engineer.

...and lets be honest

Yes, let's.  Where did you get your engineering degree, for starters?  What actual engineering designs have you worked on?

...the rover tyres make no sense at all, they are an absolute triumph of style over substance.

No, you just don't understand what properly constitutes "substance" in this design.  Your lack of understanding has been the overarching problem since Day One.  Until you get an actual clue, you aren't worth much attention.  You still don't know the difference among weight, mass, and force.

[JayUtah]

Once again, to accelerate the rover wheel needs enough traction to pull 6 times the weight on it in total...

No.  This is a wrong assumption.  How many times do the professionals need to tell you it's wrong before you finally get a clue?

[Luckmeister]

All it represents is an actual physical test of the laughable rover wheel together with a simulated soil based on the previous fake apollo missions.

Please answer this: Was the entire Apollo program a hoax? If not, what missions were real?

Part of proper scientific method is to look objectively at evidence against one's hypothesis. You ignore most of the evidence against yours. It's time you start showing proof of faked missions instead of clinging to your misunderstanding of physics principles. It appears we've seen the best of what you have and it's lame, to put it bluntly.

You have used common sense as part of your belief in NASA fakery. Does your common sense tell you how they could possibly keep that fakery secret for 40+ years with thousands of professional physicists, engineers, launch control personnel, tracking station workers, system subcontract workers etc. etc. having to be in on the hoax or at least suspect it and yet remain totally quiet for all this time? My common sense (and direct knowledge of 1960's space program development) tells me that making rovers which could and did drive on the Moon would have been a snap compared to the difficulty in successfully hoaxing even just the LRV portion of the Apollo program.

I worked in the space program in the 1960's so if I seem to show a lack of respect for your inept hoax belief, it's because I find it personally insulting that someone with mediocre knowledge and research tries to demean what is considered to be the finest technological achievement in history.

You should be totally ashamed of your presentation here. Perhaps some day you will be.