[Paul Bunyan]

And again, in the interests of keeping the thread on track, all I am pointing out is the impossibility of what NASA is saying regarding the rovers.

If you want to suggest it is due to some typo regarding the specs go right ahead.

I'm not implying anything, I'm trying to understand what it is you are implying...

If, as you suggest, the scenario is impossible then either NASA is lying about 1. going to the moon, or 2. the specifications of the lunar vehicles. Which one is it?

[Fegasderty]

might not be tower bridge on second looking.

[Big A]

I think the minimum power required for a usable vehicle on Earth is an interesting question.

I proffer this from Wikipedia:
Soon after, Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach in Stuttgart in 1889 designed a vehicle from scratch to be an automobile, rather than a horse-drawn carriage fitted with an engine. They also are usually credited with invention of the first motorcycle in 1886, but Italy's Enrico Bernardi of the University of Padua, in 1882, patented a 0.024 horsepower (17.9 W) 122 cc (7.4 cu in) one-cylinder petrol motor, fitting it into his son's tricycle, making it at least a candidate for the first automobile, and first motorcycle;.[5].26 Bernardi enlarged the tricycle in 1892 to carry two adults.[5].26

[PhillipHer]

The overall mass of rover plus payload was 1500 lbs. I'm guessing those videos L_D points to where the LRV shows amazing performance (as amazing as 11 km/h can actually be) where times when it was lightly packed with payload, taking it near to its mass of 463 lb.

[Lillie_Steins]

The overall mass of rover plus payload was 1500 lbs. I'm guessing those videos L_D points to where the LRV shows amazing performance (as amazing as 11 km/h can actually be) where times when it was lightly packed with payload, taking it near to its mass of 463 lb.

11kph... not exactly Gambon-esque

[softy54534]

I'm not implying anything, I'm trying to understand what it is you are implying...

If, as you suggest, the scenario is impossible then either NASA is lying about 1. going to the moon, or 2. the specifications of the lunar vehicles. Which one is it?

Well you would have to be pretty braindead not to realise that I consider the Apollo missions to be faked, but what I am offering as evidence is the impossibility of the story we are being told about the rovers, if you want to try and nullify that evidence by suggesting that it is merely a question about the specs then go right ahead.

What do you consider regarding the premise, it is true or not true that the forces the rover will come under being driven on the Moon will be largely the same as here on Earth, and that the power needed to accelerate the vehicle will also be the same?

[softy54534]

taking it near to its mass of 463 lb. plus the two astronauts.

[PhillipHer]

Well you would have to be pretty braindead not to realise that I consider the Apollo missions to be faked, but what I am offering as evidence is the impossibility of the story we are being told about the rovers, if you want to try and nullify that evidence by suggesting that it is merely a question about the specs then go right ahead.

What do you consider regarding the premise, it is true or not true that the forces the rover will come under being driven on the Moon will be largely the same as here on Earth, and that the power needed to accelerate the vehicle will also be the same?

So what, exactly, was the acceleration rate?

[Big A]

Well you would have to be pretty braindead not to realise that I consider the Apollo missions to be faked, but what I am offering as evidence is the impossibility of the story we are being told about the rovers, if you want to try and nullify that evidence by suggesting that it is merely a question about the specs then go right ahead.

What do you consider regarding the premise, it is true or not true that the forces the rover will come under being driven on the Moon will be largely the same as here on Earth, and that the power needed to accelerate the vehicle will also be the same?

More for TCH, but from what I recall, torque is more important than power for acceleration isn;t it. And since these are electric motors they should have loads of torque.

[NeroASERCH]

What do you consider regarding the premise, it is true or not true that the forces the rover will come under being driven on the Moon will be largely the same as here on Earth, and that the power needed to accelerate the vehicle will also be the same? well seeing as you are putting this forward then please show your workings that lead you to these assumptions.

[Peptobismol]

The overall mass of rover plus payload was 1500 lbs. I'm guessing those videos L_D points to where the LRV shows amazing performance (as amazing as 11 km/h can actually be) where times when it was lightly packed with payload, taking it near to its mass of 463 lb.

The astronauts were 400lbs a piece, so unless no-one was driving you can pretty much double your mass.

[9mm_fan]

Well you would have to be pretty braindead not to realise that I consider the Apollo missions to be faked, but what I am offering as evidence is the impossibility of the story we are being told about the rovers, if you want to try and nullify that evidence by suggesting that it is merely a question about the specs then go right ahead.

What do you consider regarding the premise, it is true or not true that the forces the rover will come under being driven on the Moon will be largely the same as here on Earth, and that the power needed to accelerate the vehicle will also be the same?

The thing is the engineering is sound and you, my friend, are bat-shit crazy to think the moon landings were faked...

[Lillie_Steins]

More for TCH, but from what I recall, torque is more important than power for acceleration isn;t it. And since these are electric motors they should have loads of torque.

Correct.
Electric motors make most torque at low revs and hence provide the best acceleration at low revs.
You really don't need much power to move along at a reasonable speed, especially with zero wind drag.

[doctorzlo]

"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races".

[LottiFurmann]

The astronauts were 400lbs a piece, so unless no-one was driving you can pretty much double your mass.

Still with one astronaut only taking it to about 863 lb.

[Fegasderty]

"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races".

Popular saying though not actually true. Neither is more important than the other; torque at the wheels is most important though.

[Lt_Apple]

well seeing as you are putting this forward then please show your workings that lead you to these assumptions.

F=ma and a=F/m

[TorryJens]

i don't think einstein said it either. or wrote it.

;-)

[MannoFr]

i don't think einstein said it either. or wrote it.

;-)

But he did walk on the Moon!

[Peptobismol]

Well you would have to be pretty braindead not to realise that I consider the Apollo missions to be faked, but what I am offering as evidence is the impossibility of the story we are being told about the rovers, if you want to try and nullify that evidence by suggesting that it is merely a question about the specs then go right ahead.

Well it does seem to be rather strange to accept the basis of your argument (that the rover would have collapsed under ful load on Earth) as true without question, but then accept that this is proof that the Moon landings were faked. I mean surely even if your hypothesis were correct surely the obvious reason would be that whoever wrote that piece just got it wrong.

What do you consider regarding the premise, it is true or not true that the forces the rover will come under being driven on the Moon will be largely the same as here on Earth

Not true.

, and that the power needed to accelerate the vehicle will also be the same?

On the flat it would be much the same.


Pleased to be of service.