Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

[smartcooky]

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

No it doesn't.

I weigh about 170 lb, yet I can easily push my 1982 Honda CB750 (weight about 500 lb) along a flat and level road.

Please explain how this is possible, and show your working.

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

Don't hold your breath!!

[gillianren]

Anywho, have you considered the possibility that thousands, probably tens of thousands, of experts who have a different opinion from yours are right and you are wrong?

[smartcooky]

Anywho, have you considered the possibility that thousands, probably tens of thousands, of experts who have a different opinion from yours are right and you are wrong?

For that matter, do any of the HBs believe they might possibly be wrong?

[Luckmeister]

anywho, you have two very important rebuttals by Jason Thompson to your physics assumption you need to address and you have been asked repeatedly to do so. They are at the crux of your accusation of fakery:

1.

Now you will answer my question: do you agree that if you accept F = ma you must also accept that a = F/m? Forget the details, we're talking about the basics here. Do you agree that the acceleration of any mass is proportional to the net force on it?

2.

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?

If you continue to misapply basic physics and ignore corrections and questions, it can only be assumed that you don't understand your own argument and/or refuse to consider any possibility that you may be wrong. Is that where we are or will you actually engage in a basic physics discussion?

[beedarko]

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.

Anywho, I'd like to make an observation and ask you a sincere question based on that observation.  I'd like you to take a deep breath and address it honestly and candidly, as I do not ask it as a means of provocation or antagonism.  I'm genuinely curious about your thought processes and the underlying motivation behind your posts.

In this forum there are multiple professionals who work in fields directly related to the sciences which governed the Apollo program, and space flight in general.  I have read these posts. They are ALL telling you that your claims have little or no merit, and that your understanding of said science is lacking.  Despite this, you continue to insist that your positions are factual, while theirs are faulty.


1) Is it your belief that the professionals in this forum are trying to deceive you by intentionally posting information they know to be false?

2) If "no", then is it your belief that your knowledge of the topic is somehow superior to theirs and others with similar expertise?

3) If you answered "no" to both questions, can you explain why you continue to dispute their points, and moreover, why you continue to favor the possibility of a hoax, given your newly gained knowledge?

I thank you in advance for your timely response to these questions.

[Luckmeister]

anywho, let's recap:

You started with The motors were too small.

     You failed to support that assumption (it was shown that they weren't too small).

So you went to The rover wasn't strong enough to support two astronauts' weight in 1G.

     You failed to support that assumption (they made a 1G rover for training.... and photos).

So you went to The Moon is slippery as ice so the rover wouldn't have worked.

     You failed to support that assumption (you admit no knowledge of lunar surface conditions).

So you went to The rover had to pull over 5 times it's weight, which it couldn't do.

     You failed to support that assumption (a = F/m).

So you now have gone to The tire chevrons were chosen to look cool instead of assisting operation.

     You have yet to support that assumption (and how would that help prove fakery?).

So what's next? Let me help.... The paint is the wrong color causing the rover to melt in direct sunlight?

Or maybe.... The rover electronics would have fried from cosmic rays within the first 10 minutes?

     Both of those make at least as much sense as what you've presented so far.

[ka9q]

THEY MADE A STRONGER VERSION SO THE MOST OBVIOUS ANSWER TO YOUR INANE QUESTION IS THAT THE USED A STRONGER VERSION HERE ON EARTH

There actually is a "1-g trainer" version of the LRV that, as the name suggests, could be driven on earth and there are many pictures of it in the Apollo archives. It is now in storage at the Smithsonian. All the differences between it and the lunar version are highlighted in this detailed manual:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRV_OpsNAS8-25145.pdf

The most obvious difference was the use of pneumatic tires to support the 6x greater weight. These are clearly visible in the training photos. So are numerous support people not wearing pressure suits; grass, trees, buildings, cars, roads, sidewalks, etc in the background; atmospheric haze and a blue sky and clouds overhead; and plenty of other subtle indications to the astute observer that the scene was on earth, not the moon. Since you claim the alleged lunar pictures were really taken on the earth, perhaps you could point out to us some of these giveaway clues that we must have missed.

And perhaps you can also explain to us why the LRV was too fragile to operate in 1/6 g on the moon when the 1-g version obviously worked well on earth without any obvious structural differences other than the tires.

[ka9q]

Anywho, can you please explain what's going on in this video? A 2 wheel drive vehicle getting traction (and not sinking!) in water.

Wow, I had no idea that was possible! The Mythbusters had great difficulty doing this with a car some time back, but I think they ultimately succeeded over a much shorter stretch of water. Here the weight-to-tire-area ratio is probably a lot lower too.

[Zakalwe]

Wow, I had no idea that was possible! The Mythbusters had great difficulty doing this with a car some time back, but I think they ultimately succeeded over a much shorter stretch of water. Here the weight-to-tire-area ratio is probably a lot lower too.

You don't even need 4 wheels. Heres Pastrana doing it on a motocrosser.

Of course, this must be faked as a wheel cannot gain traction on a slippery surface..... 

[ka9q]

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?

In anywho's defense, there's a logically consistent answer that I'm surprised he hasn't given yet:

The film does not depict an event that is physically possible on either the earth or the moon. I.e., it was synthesized somehow, in all or in part.

Of course that would open him up to several lines of perfectly reasonable questioning:

Exactly what are we seeing that's physically impossible on both the earth and the moon? (Since the conclusion is based on quantitative arguments like "the rover couldn't  have withstood the applied forces" this would necessarily include detailed engineering physics calculations with the actual properties of all materials available around 1970.)

Exactly how was the film faked so realistically?  (Since this is arguably impossible even today, we would need complete details of how it was done with 1970 technology.)

If it was based at least in part on real live footage, exactly where was it shot? ("Area 51" is not an acceptable answer unless you have actual evidence it was shot there. If you can't narrow it down to a specific location, provide a list of candidate sites with surface characteristics identical to what we see, or close enough to be modified into what we see with 1970 film/video technology. Low gravity and/or a vacuum atmosphere is a definite plus.)

Exactly who created this footage? (Names, titles and actual evidence of their actions.)

Why did they create it as an alternative to doing what they claimed to have done? (Given the difficulty of creating a convincing fake, plus the enormous risks of being found out, wouldn't it have been easier to just go to the moon for real?)

[JayUtah]

So what's next? Let me help.... The paint is the wrong color causing the rover to melt in direct sunlight?

That would somewhat make sense, but in the other direction.  The problem was the LRV getting too cold.  Mission rules allowed it to be parked in shade for only up to two hours, otherwise it would get too cold to function properly.  The coatings on the instrument cluster etc. were to provide the proper absoprtion.  Incidentally this is also why certain portions of the LM are black and/or otherwise differently coated:  the hypergolic fuel likes to be kept at around 70 F and needs a certain amount of solar influx to maintain that.

[darren r]

That would somewhat make sense, but in the other direction.  The problem was the LRV getting too cold.  Mission rules allowed it to be parked in shade for only up to two hours, otherwise it would get too cold to function properly.  The coatings on the instrument cluster etc. were to provide the proper absoprtion.  Incidentally this is also why certain portions of the LM are black and/or otherwise differently coated:  the hypergolic fuel likes to be kept at around 70 F and needs a certain amount of solar influx to maintain that.

That reminds me of a debate I had on another forum, with a guy who claimed that Apollo was fake because the LRV couldn't operate at night on the Moon, with lots of sarcastic comments about putting it in a garage. I pointed out to him that the lunar day lasted two weeks so the astronauts were long gone before that became an issue.

[beedarko]

So what's next? Let me help.... The paint is the wrong color causing the rover to melt in direct sunlight?

Or maybe.... The rover electronics would have fried from cosmic rays within the first 10 minutes?

You realize he now has all the ammo he needs for a new 43-page thread.

[anywho]

anywho, let's recap:

So you went to The rover wasn't strong enough to support two astronauts' weight in 1G.

     You failed to support that assumption (they made a 1G rover for training.... and photos).

For the 100th time, it was not me who said that the rover could not support the rovers weight in 1g, it is NASA, all I am saying is that it makes no sense for them them to say that the lunar rovers were too weak to support the astronauts weight but then they can take it to the moon and slam it into craters at 10kph.

anywho, let's recap:


So you went to The Moon is slippery as ice so the rover wouldn't have worked.

     You failed to support that assumption (you admit no knowledge of lunar surface conditions).

So you went to The rover had to pull over 5 times it's weight, which it couldn't do.

     You failed to support that assumption (a = F/m).

I admit I was wrong about the drawbar pull coefficient needing to be 5 to accelerate (longer post coming when I have time, which will show that traction on the moon is indeed comparable to ice on earth), but it is still true that the rovers need power and traction to pull the entire mass of the vehicle, which on the moon is 6 times the weight. That is irrefutable.

So you now have gone to The tire chevrons were chosen to look cool instead of assisting operation.

     You have yet to support that assumption (and how would that help prove fakery?).

I didn't just say the were a triumph of style over substance, I gave my reasons, the chevrons cover 50% of the fictive surface, they recess the reamaining 50%, they are smooth and they are thin so provide very little by way of tread.

They're just plain dumb, an elegant solution might have been to put the chevrons on the inside of the mesh but when it's all a farce, why bother?

[anywho]

anywho, let's recap:

You started with The motors were too small.

     You failed to support that assumption (it was shown that they weren't too small).

It was never "shown that they weren't too small", not only are the motors ridiculously small for such a large mass but the wheels are ridiculously large, I have (admittedly) belatedly done some calculations.

1/4hp @ 125rpm = torque 10.5 lb.ft, tyre radius 15inch, mass fully loaded 400lbs.

F = 10.5/1.25= 8.4

8.4/400 = 0.021

0.021*32.18 = 0.68 ft/s/s  or  0.2m/s/s (more than 13s to make it to 10kph)