[Raj_Copi_Jin]

We are told by NASA that the lunar rovers were built of such lightweight construction that if an astronaut was to sit on one here on Earth it would collapse, yet basic physics tells us that if an astronaut can't sit on a rover on Earth without breaking it, then he certainly cannot drive one on the Moon. The equation for force is Newton's F = ma, weight doesn't enter the equation at all, only mass, which is the same for the rover on the Moon as it is on Earth.

The very simple and proven equation of F = ma proves the forces the rover will come under being driven on the Moon are the same as they are on Earth.

If a rover is driving along at 10mph and hits a pothole the forces the rover comes under are the same on the Moon as on Earth, if the vehicle lurches upwards it will rise 6 times higher on the Moon, so, if the rover rises one inch on Earth then the same rover at the same speed will rise 6 inches on the Moon, they will both land with the same force from the differing heights. It is therefore impossible to make a vehicle so weak that it can't be sat on here on Earth and then take it to the Moon and drive it at any speed on an uneven terrain.

Similarly, for acceleration a formula is a=F/m, and that equation is the same on the Moon as it is on Earth, or even in space. The moon rovers had 1/4 hp electric motors for each wheel, that's a grand total of 1 horsepower to drive an estimated 1500lb mass, don't forget that the mass of the rovers is the same on the Moon as on Earth, and the power needed to drive that mass is also the same, all that the Moon's lower gravity will do is make the rover lighter on the moon's surface and cause traction difficulties.



This has 1 hp, imagine putting 6 or 7 big blokes on it and taking it for a spin, how much performance would you get? On the moon they hooned around with a mass of near 1500lbs with the same motor power as the wheelchair, they not only got great performance but had no noticeable traction problems due to 1/6g.

I call shenanigans.

[Slonopotam845]

and yet they did it. a triumph of science over pseudoscience.

[TorryJens]

You really, really, need to think much, much more, and post much, much less.

[Big A]

and also moon hoax conspiracys have been debunked years ago and are a little passé these days.

[9mm_fan]

We are told by NASA that the lunar rovers were built of such lightweight construction that if an astronaut was to sit on one here on Earth it would collapse, yet basic physics tells us that if an astronaut can't sit on a rover on Earth without breaking it, then he certainly cannot drive one on the Moon. The equation for force is Newton's F = ma, weight doesn't enter the equation at all, only mass, which is the same for the rover on the Moon as it is on Earth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



You got a reference for that?
Sounds like bullshit to me.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I call shenanigans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >


That's OK...Won't change history and the fact that we had 6 Lunar landings.

[Slonopotam845]

You got a reference for that?
Sounds like bullshit to me.

.

I assume you mean a reference for the claim that the rovers couldn't be sat on here on Earth or they would break?

http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplor.../Part1/LRV.htm

Quote:
"The Earth trainer had rubber tires and could support its own weight in 1 g. The flight article would have collapsed in 1 g if the crew sat on it."

[radikal]

The equation for force is Newton's F = ma, weight doesn't enter the equation at all, only mass, which is the same for the rover on the Moon as it is on Earth.

I call shenanigans.

Apart from the fact the equation is used to calculate weight.

[9mm_fan]

now for some science...

http://moonbuggy.msfc.nasa.gov/index.html

[S.T.D.]

I assume you mean a reference for the claim that the rovers couldn't be sat on here on Earth or they would break?

http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplor.../Part1/LRV.htm

Quote:
"The Earth trainer had rubber tires and could support its own weight in 1 g. The flight article would have collapsed in 1 g if the crew sat on it."

It was the way the gear that went to the Moon was designed and built.
The Lunar Lander (LM) was not strong enough to support itself on its own legs on Earth, let along with two astronauts on board it. It was only ever designed to work on the Moon and hence was only ever strong enough for that.
Same deal for the Lunar Rover - Only strong enough to do what it was designed for and nothing more. Every fraction of a kilogram extra they carried cost them plenty so everything had to be absolutely pared to the minimum in every way.

I also like that they are the most expensive car ever made, and they were also made by Boeing.

[doctorzlo]

We are told by NASA that the lunar rovers were built of such lightweight construction that if an astronaut was to sit on one here on Earth it would collapse, yet basic physics tells us that if an astronaut can't sit on a rover on Earth without breaking it, then he certainly cannot drive one on the Moon. The equation for force is Newton's F = ma, weight doesn't enter the equation at all, only mass, which is the same for the rover on the Moon as it is on Earth.

The stupid, it burns!

I stopped reading there. The force is this equation IS the weight, if the acceleration is gravitational. Whoever wrote this is so, so ignorant about physics.

[Lillie_Steins]

one good thing about this thread is that it has me reading the journals for the landings and about the tech of the buggies.

[MannoFr]

It was the way the gear that went to the Moon was designed and built.
The Lunar Lander (LM) was not strong enough to support itself on its own legs on Earth, let along with two astronauts on board it. It was only ever designed to work on the Moon and hence was only ever strong enough for that.
.

Do you have a reference for that? They would have to do a ridiculously gentle touchdown if that is true.

I thought they freefell for the last part? It be true that the forces the lander would come under would be the same as freefall from 1/6 the height here on Earth, that would mean it would have to be able to withstand not only it's own weight (astronauts included) but also the dynamic loading from the fall.

[softy54534]

Do you have a reference for that? They would have to do a ridiculously gentle touchdown if that is true.

I thought they freefell for the last part? It be true that the forces the lander would come under would be the same as freefall from 1/6 the height here on Earth, that would mean it would have to be able to withstand not only it's own weight (astronauts included) but also the dynamic loading from the fall.

You really need to do that research thing, really.
And I don't mean woo-woo sites, I mean real sites with real information.

[Beerinkol]

Could someone calculate the difference between fuel required to lift the return vehicle from the surface of the moon and the surface of the Earth. Should provide a fair comparison between 1g and moon g.

[Ifroham4]

Should provide a fair comparison between 1g and moon g. plus atmosphere of course.

[PhillipHer]

Could someone calculate the difference between fuel required to lift the return vehicle from the surface of the moon and the surface of the Earth. Should provide a fair comparison between 1g and moon g.

is probably just 6x or something, but,,,

[tgs]

Start here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module

[Big A]

plus atmosphere of course.

I guess that would significantly alter the equation. How would one compare the load on the materials tensile strength between here and there?

[Beerinkol]

The stupid, it burns!

I stopped reading there. The force is this equation IS the weight, if the acceleration is gravitational. Whoever wrote this is so, so ignorant about physics.

Once the vehicle is accelerating, whether it is from gravity or the motor, it is irrelevant whether the vehicle is on Earth, or the Moon, or outer space. A mass travelling at a certain speed will impart the same forces wherever it is.

[Beerinkol]

Love the picture clarity you gain sans atmosphere.